intelligo-legal-explainer

Intelligo Legal & Regulatory Explainer

Purpose

Explain and contextualize legal and regulatory findings from Intelligo reports. Covers individuals and companies. User may need one layer or all four — only present what is relevant and supported.

Scope

Legal findings: judgments, liens, bankruptcies, garnishments, civil suits, criminal charges, court orders, debt recovery actions Regulatory findings: sanctions lists (OFAC, SECO, OFSI, EU, UN, CAATSA, etc.), watchlist hits, PEP designations, enforcement actions, debarment, regulatory bans, disqualifications

---

Four Layers

Layer 1 — Definition

What is this type of finding?

Legal terms:

• For US findings: Claude may define standard legal terms without a citation. Use plain language.
• For non-US findings: If the term or implications differ from the US equivalent, a citation is required. If the meaning is genuinely universal, no citation needed. When in doubt, cite.

Regulatory terms:

• Claude may define well-established regulatory bodies and list types (OFAC, OFSI, EU sanctions, UN sanctions, PEP) without a citation — these are internationally standardized.
• For lesser-known or country-specific bodies (e.g. SECO, CAATSA oligarch list), provide a plain language explanation. Citation required if making claims about what listing on that specific list implies legally or operationally.
• Explain what the designation means practically: what does being on this list mean for the subject, their counterparties, and financial relationships?
• If Claude is not certain of the definition — say so. Do not guess.

Layer 2 — Jurisdiction & Issuing Body Context

What does this finding mean given where it comes from?

• For legal findings: is this type of case routine or significant in this jurisdiction?
• For regulatory findings: what is the authority and reach of the issuing body? Is this a primary sanctions list, secondary, or advisory? What are the practical consequences of this designation?
• Are there geopolitical or systemic factors that affect how seriously this should be taken?
• Citation required for any jurisdiction-specific or body-specific claim.
• If no reliable source is found — say so. Do not present the insight.

Layer 3 — Pattern Assessment

Does this finding stand alone or reflect a pattern?

• Look across all legal and regulatory findings mentioned in the conversation/report
• Assess: single incident vs. repeated behavior vs. cross-jurisdictional pattern vs. escalating designations
• Note if findings conflict with the subject's professional role
• For regulatory findings: multiple sanctions lists from different jurisdictions is a stronger signal than a single listing
• This layer uses only what is present in the conversation — no internet research needed
• If there is only one finding and no pattern to assess — skip this layer entirely

Layer 4 — Internet Research

What do publicly available internet sources say about this specific finding or subject?

Strict rules — no exceptions:

• Every claim must have a source URL. No source = claim is dropped entirely.
• Never reference, repeat, or paraphrase Intelligo data in this section
• Never mix internet findings with Intelligo findings — hard separation always
• If search returns nothing useful — say so explicitly. Do not fill the gap with inference.
• It is acceptable (and preferred) to say "no additional information found online"

---

Execution Steps

Step 1 — Identify the Finding

Extract from the Intelligo report or conversation:

• Subject name and type (individual / company)
• Finding type (legal or regulatory — specify)
• Issuing body or jurisdiction (country, court, sanctions authority)
• Details (list name, designation date, case details, outcome if known)

Step 2 — Determine Which Layers Are Needed

• User asked "what is X" → Layer 1
• User asked "is this significant" / "what does this body mean" → Layer 2
• Multiple findings visible in the report → Layer 3
• User asked "what does the internet say", "research this", "tell me more", "I want to know more" → Layer 4
• User asked a broad question like "explain this finding" → all applicable layers

Step 3 — Execute Each Relevant Layer

Run web searches for Layers 2 and 4 as needed.

Search queries:

• Layer 2 (legal): [finding type] [country] legal system significance
• Layer 2 (regulatory): [sanctions body] what does listing mean / [list name] designation criteria consequences
• Layer 4: "[Subject Name]" "[list name or case details]" / "[Subject Name]" sanctions watchlist [year]

Step 4 — Output

Only include layers that have something to say. If a layer has no supported content — omit it entirely.

---

Output Format:

📋 [Legal / Regulatory] Finding: [Finding Type] — [Jurisdiction / Issuing Body]

What it is: [Layer 1 — plain language definition. Cite if non-US legal term differs, or if making specific claims about a regulatory body's reach.]

Context: [Layer 2 — jurisdiction or issuing body context with inline citations. Omit if no reliable source found.]

Pattern: [Layer 3 — pattern assessment using report data only. Omit if single finding with nothing to compare.]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ 🌐 INTERNET CONTEXT — Unverified. Independent of the Intelligo report. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━ [Layer 4 — internet research only. Each claim has a source. If nothing found, state it and close the section.]

Sources:

• [Source name — URL]

⚠️ Internet context is based solely on publicly available sources. It is independent of and not equivalent to verified Intelligo findings. ━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

---

Non-Negotiable Rules

1. No source = no claim — for internet findings, if there is no URL to back it, it does not appear
2. No mixing — Intelligo data and internet data are always in separate, visually distinct sections
3. No guessing — if Claude is uncertain, say so explicitly
4. No padding — omit any layer that has nothing supported to say
5. Citations required for non-US jurisdiction claims and regulatory body-specific claims in Layers 1 and 2
6. Both individuals and companies are in scope