1. Enhanced Due Diligence Prevents a High-Risk Acquisition
Client: Confidential
Engagement type: Pre-transaction due diligence (counterparty + target asset)
Methods: Lawful records checks, documentary review, and evidence-based analysis
Objective
Assess both (i) the potential business partner and (ii) the asset to be acquired, to support a go/no-go decision before committing capital.
Approach (high level)
Defined scope and questions with the client (counterparty background + asset status).
Performed targeted legal and records checks and consolidated findings into an evidence-based report.
Documented all sources and preserved exhibits to ensure auditability.
Findings
Although initial, surface-level checks appeared normal, our verification work observed, recorded, and evidenced that the target asset:
was entangled in undisclosed litigation, and had a high likelihood of becoming subject to precautionary measures imposed by competent authorities,being linked to a complex organized-crime scheme in the financial field.
Recommendation
Issue a “do not proceed” recommendation and abort the transaction.
Outcome
Following the due diligence report and our recommendation, the client withdrew the ~EUR 3 million investment.
Within three months, the risk areas highlighted in the report materialized, validating the decision to disengage.
This case study is anonymized; underlying materials are retained in the internal case file.
2. Background Screening Prevents a High-Risk Partnership
Client: Confidential (corporate/investor)
Engagement: Background checks on a prospective business partner ahead of a sizeable investment
Methods: Lawful records checks, litigation & insolvency screening, fiscal/regulatory lookups, OSINT, HUMINT, discreet reference inquiries
Objective
Validate the prospective partner’s legal, financial, and reputational standing before committing capital and entering a long-term collaboration.
Approach
Scoping & red-flag criteria agreed with the client (legal exposure, fiscal compliance, credit signals, adverse media).
Synthesis: decision-ready brief with findings, risk ratings, and practical options.
Key Findings
Despite prominence in business circles and a public perception of strong financial standing, evidence indicated significant legal issues affecting the subject.
Fiscal-control red flags were identified (actions/concerns involving tax authorities).
Multiple businesses associated with the subject showed patterns consistent with unpaid debts and unhonoured loans, suggesting elevated credit and counterparty risk.
Discrepancies existed between the subject’s public image and the verifiable record.
Recommendation
Issue a “Do Not Proceed” recommendation; avoid formal engagement and associated capital exposure. Consider alternate counterparties with cleaner legal/credit profiles.
Outcome
The client withdrew from the contemplated partnership. Shortly thereafter, media reports surfaced portraying the subject’s lack of reliability and poor creditworthiness, aligning with the risk assessment.
3. HUMINT-Led Findings Halt a High-Risk M&A in Real Estate
Client: Confidential (major real estate actor)
Engagement: Extended pre-M&A due diligence (counterparty + principal asset)
Jurisdiction(s): Romania
Methods: Lawful records checks, HUMINT, multi-site field verification, documentary review, evidentiary preservation
Objective
Assess a proposed M&A of a company positioned as a “significant real-estate player,” with focus on the counterparty’s integrity and the legal status of its flagship asset (high-value land in a major Romanian city).
Approach
Scoping & hypotheses with the client (asset title integrity, undisclosed encumbrances, insider involvement).
Synthesis: decision-ready report with risk ratings and scenarios.
Key Findings
The main asset was subject to undisclosed litigation that did not appear in the public registry portal at the time of our checks.
Evidence indicated the manipulation of a legal document series/identifier allegedly in collusion with a government employee, concealing the dispute from standard lookups.
Although the relevant state investigation was not yet public, corroborated HUMINT and document traces showed the company’s owner had multiple criminal complaints filed against him for selling the same property to multiple buyers (multiple-sale pattern), creating material exposure to future claims and precautionary measures.
Recommendation
Do not proceed with the acquisition. Consider alternative targets; if any engagement continues, require enhanced representations, warranties, and escrow arrangements—subject to a clean, independently verifiable title and full disclosures.
Outcome
The client immediately withdrew from the contemplated transaction, avoiding exposure to asset encumbrance/seizure, criminal-law touchpoints, and reputational damage.
