For fund managers and asset owners regulated by the Capital Market Authority
When a limit breaks, the regulator is told in time, in a letter you can defend.
Your systems already notice a breach. ComAgents carries it from that moment to the Authority's desk: the deadline computed, the bilingual letter written from the case, two people behind it, and a record an inspector can verify without asking you.
Nothing on this page needs an account, and reading it shares nothing with us.
- Detected
- Tuesday 09:30, from the custodian's report
- Window
- 24 calendar hours after detection
- Letters
- English drafted · Arabic drafted
- Both languages agree
- 4 items match
- Detectedfrom your system, a file, an email or a personTuesday 09:30
- Clock computedfrom the article, the fund type and the breach24 h · Art. 62
- Letter writtenevery figure from the case; both languages agreeEN + AR
- Two signaturesapproved by one person, signed by anotherawaiting the second
- Sent, recorded, sealedwho, by what route, when — on the chain—
The window Article 62 gives this fund. Every window is computed from its own article — never remembered by a person.
Different people on every letter: one approves, another signs. The system refuses the same name twice.
Chain of evidence an inspector can re-verify months later, with no account and no call to us.
The letter
Every figure is computed. A person edits the words, not the numbers.
A notification that misstates a holding is worse than a late one. The engine computes each figure from the case facts and checks every claim in the draft against them before a person ever reads it. What a person changes is the language.
The Arabic and English letters are separate documents with separate approvals, and the figures, dates, clause references and the fund's name are compared across them by code. A difference blocks sign-off of either letter until a person resolves it.
The gate
One person approves. A different person signs.
Separation of duties is the first thing an inspector tests and the easiest thing to lose under time pressure. Here it is not a policy anyone has to remember: the signature is refused when the two names match, and both names are written into the record.
Every step carries who did it and when — drafted, figures checked, approved, signed, sent.
The record
A record an inspector can check without asking us
Every decision, letter and document is written into a hash-chained trail: alter one entry and every entry after it stops matching. The check re-runs on demand, over the whole chain, in front of whoever is asking.
An inspection pack carries its proof with it, so whoever receives it can verify the record independently — with no account and no call to us.
head 9d85f2afe2e2a0d2e3ca80f2f9895313bab821179… · 432 entries · verified head to genesis · nothing altered since it was written
How it fits
A breach reaches us however it already reaches you
Detection is not the product and is not a prerequisite. However your firm learns that a limit broke, that is how the case starts here — so nothing waits on your systems, your IT or your information-security review. Days to start, not a quarter.
Where it comes from
ComAgents
Where it goes
Your positions never have to come here. Checking them against limits is offered as a module for firms that want it — never the price of entry.
You notify the Authority.
Every public fund's limits, its deadline policy and its letters in one record, with the clause each limit cites.
You notify the external manager.
Same clock, same gate, same evidence — the letter goes to the manager who breached the mandate, and the record stays yours.
You run it for several firms.
Your own workspace, a membership in each client firm, and every act landing on that firm's record under your name.
What it will not do
It does not need your positions on day one. It does not decide whether a limit broke — your systems, your custodian or your compliance officer do, and it takes the breach from any of them. It does not generate a number: every figure in a letter is computed, and a missing input is reported as not evaluable, never as a breach.
Questions we are asked first
Do you need our positions?
No — not on day one, and not ever unless you want the optional module that checks them. A breach can be recorded by a person in under a minute, and everything after that works the same however it arrived.
Does this replace our compliance module?
No. It sits after it. Your module keeps finding breaches; this carries each one to the regulator on time, in a letter you can defend, and keeps the proof.
How long before we are running?
Days rather than a quarter, because there is nothing to integrate before you start. The work is agreeing who approves, who signs, and which deadlines your funds are held to.
Where does our record live?
Stated as fact rather than as a promise on the trust page: where this deployment is hosted, how the data is protected on the way and at rest, and what the model is never asked. Read it
What happens when an inspection comes?
You export an inspection pack: the cases, the letters, the decisions and the dates, with the proof to check them inside it. Whoever receives it can verify it without an account.
Can a consultant run this for several firms?
Yes. A consultancy has its own workspace and reaches each client firm through a membership there, so every act still lands on that firm's own record under the consultant's name.
Start with a conversation
Tell us how breaches reach you today, and who signs the letters.
We write back within one working day and tell you honestly whether this is worth your time.
Talk to us
Say who you are and we write back within one working day. No account is created and nothing you type here is shared.