Purpose and status

Working protocol v1.0 • 8 September 2026 • Defined with Brecht as the basis for further development with Nitin, commodities trading lawyer. This document describes the research method; it contains no findings about any specific company. Reports are prepared in English by default.

Live DD pilot (English): Open the Due Diligence Research Desk. The site is currently accessible without login; use it to test the research chat and generate a DD pre-scan report.

Assess whether the identity, people, activities and specific transaction of a counterparty can be independently substantiated. The target universe includes parties capable of professionally disguising a misleading story. A company registration, polished website or LinkedIn profile does not by itself prove operational credibility. Search for both incriminating and exculpatory evidence; suspicion is not the starting conclusion.

Execution in five phases

1. Define the assignment, exact entities, claims and transaction.
2. Investigate all applicable core areas below. Mark non-applicable items and state why.
3. Follow relevant relationships and contradictions further, including beyond the original checklist.
4. Request targeted additional evidence or human access; record the remaining gaps.
5. Deliver a substantiated conclusion, evidence appendix and concrete verification questions. Have specialised legal or sector-specific questions reviewed separately.

Research plan

1. Intake and transaction narrative

Record who introduced the party, what is being offered, countries, product, amounts, timing, intermediaries, documents and intended flow of funds. Who is asking for trust, money or a signature, and on what basis? Missing deal information does not prevent company and people research; transaction testing then remains explicitly incomplete.

2. Claims and expected evidence

Record the exact claims: experience, turnover, capacity, staff, ownership, clients, mandates, government relationships and product access. For each material claim, state what independent evidence would reasonably be expected. Distinguish between own production, trading, brokerage and representation.

2A. Claimed scope vs evidenced role

Compare what the company claims to sell, control or represent with what can actually be evidenced. A broad portfolio across oil, gold, sugar, metals or other commodities is not proof of capability. Establish whether the party is a producer, titleholder, authorised mandate, trader, broker or introducer, and identify how many intermediary layers exist between that party and the actual product or titleholder.

Treat exaggerated scope as a credibility issue even where outright fraud is not established. A company may be real yet materially overstate its access, authority, scale or proximity to the underlying commodity. Where a party appears to be a reseller of a reseller, or one layer in a longer broker chain, record that structure explicitly rather than allowing the party's own marketing language to define its role.

3. Exact legal identity

Verify legal name, registration number, legal form, status, incorporation date, historical names, registered address and applicable licences. Distinguish trade name, website and contracting entity. Avoid confusion with legitimate companies of the same name or misuse of their identity.