Compliance Checking in the Open Payments Ecosystem

  • Shaun Azzopardi
  • Christian Colombo
  • Gordon J. Pace
  • Brian Vella
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9763)


Given the strict legal frameworks which regulate the movements and management of funds, building financial applications typically proves to be prohibitively expensive for small companies. Not only is it the case that understanding legal requirements and building a framework of compliance checks to ensure that such legislation is adhered to is a complex process, but also, service providers such as banks require certification and reporting before they are willing to take on the risks associated with the adoption of applications from small application developers. In this paper, we propose a solution which provides a centralised Open Payments Ecosystem which supports compliance checking and allows for the matching of financial applications with service providers and programme managers, automatically providing risk analysis and reporting. The solution proposed combines static and dynamic verification in a real-life use case, which can shed new insights on the use of formal methods on large complex systems. We also report on the software engineering challenges encountered when analysing formal requirements arising from the needs of compliance to applicable legislation.


  1. 1.
    Ahrendt, W., Chimento, J.M., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: A specification language for static and runtime verification of data and control properties. In: Bjørner, N., de Boer, F. (eds.) FM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9109, pp. 108–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ahrendt, W., Pace, G.J., Schneider, G.: A unified approach for static and runtime verification: framework and applications. In: Steffen, B., Margaria, T. (eds.) ISoLA 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7609, pp. 312–326. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Azzopardi, S., Gatt, A., Pace, G.J.: Formally analysing natural language contracts. In: Computer Science Annual Workshop (2015)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bodden, E., Lam, P., Hendren, L.: Clara: a framework for partially evaluating finite-state runtime monitors ahead of time. In: Barringer, H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 183–197. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Colombo, C., Gauci, A., Pace, G.J.: LarvaStat: monitoring of statistical properties. In: Barringer, H., et al. (eds.) RV 2010. LNCS, vol. 6418, pp. 480–484. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Colombo, C., Pace, G.J., Abela, P.: Safer asynchronous runtime monitoring using compensations. Formal Methods Syst. Des. 41(3), 269–294 (2012)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Larman, C., Basili, V.R.: Iterative and incremental developments. a brief history. Computer 36(6), 47–56 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wonisch, D., Schremmer, A., Wehrheim, H.: Zero overhead runtime monitoring. In: Hierons, R.M., Merayo, M.G., Bravetti, M. (eds.) SEFM 2013. LNCS, vol. 8137, pp. 244–258. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shaun Azzopardi
    • 1
  • Christian Colombo
    • 1
  • Gordon J. Pace
    • 1
  • Brian Vella
    • 2
  1. 1.University of MaltaMsidaMalta
  2. 2.Ixaris Ltd.San ĠwannMalta

Personalised recommendations