Seller and authority
Legal existence, beneficial ownership, signatories, mandate, contractual capacity and independent contact with the principal.
Due diligence for international hydrocarbon transactions
EN590 10 ppm transaction verification in Rotterdam and Houston
We review identity, authority, terminal, tank, documents, Q&Q inspection, title and actual transfer capacity before funds or sensitive documents are exposed.
Decision supported
Proceed, condition or stop before the payment structure narrows your options
An EN590 10 ppm offer is not validated by an FCO, an alleged TSA, an allocation letter or an inspection document bearing a recognised logo. The review must connect the counterparty to the product, terminal operator, tank, title, transfer capability and payment procedure.
The output separates verified facts, indications, pending documents, contradictions and minimum conditions for proceeding.
Review perimeter
Seven layers that must withstand scrutiny together
Product and volume
Declared grade, volume, location, date, availability, specification and consistency across documents.
Terminal and tank
Actual operator, facility, tank, storage rights, access, validity and confirmation through an official channel.
Title and encumbrances
Chain of title, disposal rights, liens, third-party claims and capacity to transfer ownership.
SGS or other inspector
Appointment, Q&Q scope, sampling point, access, report addressee and document authenticity.
Executable TTT
Tank compatibility, lines, operating windows, nomination, terminal approval and physical sequence.
Payment and title transfer
Conditions precedent, payment timing, MT103, title transfer, custody and remedies if execution fails.
Professional terminology
“Tank farm” does not by itself identify a facility or a storage right
Searches often mix terminal, tank farm, individual tank, tanker vessel and tank truck. A professional transaction must identify the terminal operator, facility, specific tank, storage customer and applicable operating right.
Rotterdam has a broad network of independent terminals; Houston comprises numerous public and private terminals across the Houston Ship Channel. In either location, naming the city alone proves neither product nor access.
Warning signs
Urgency is not a substitute for independent confirmation
The terminal cannot be contacted directly
Verification remains controlled by the seller or an intermediary chain.
Payment, deposit or security is required before verification
Financial exposure arises before product, title or transfer capacity is established.
Documents do not share dates, volumes or title holders
The commercial narrative and documentary trail do not form one coherent sequence.
The alleged mandate avoids identifying the principal
It is impossible to verify who can bind the seller or authorise the transaction.
Deliverable
A preliminary opinion focused on the next decision
- Map of entities, people, documents and relationships.
- Transaction chronology and consistency review.
- Confirmed facts, indications and critical gaps.
- Fraud, impersonation and non-executable-procedure signals.
- Required direct confirmations.
- Conditions to proceed, renegotiate or stop.
The service does not certify product, act as a broker, guarantee closing or replace physical inspection, legal advice or specialist bank verification.
Institutional sources
Operational context must still be matched to the specific transaction
Procedure and logistics
TTT, TTO and maritime delivery require different evidence and one coherent chain
A TTT procedure requires confirmation of tanks, lines, operating windows, nomination and operator acceptance. In a TTO structure, documentary sequence, control of the product and transfer conditions must correspond to the stated operational reality.
Where a vessel is involved, verification includes name, IMO number, flag, owner, manager, history and terminal compatibility. These data are cross-checked against independent maritime sources and transaction-specific documents.
Seller and mandate review sits within counterparty verification; preliminary checks can be structured with the EN590 seller verification tool and the TTT, terminal and title readiness tool.
High-intent questions
EN590 supplier, tank, TTT, vessel and chain-of-title verification
How do you verify an EN590 supplier?
Corporate existence, ownership, authority and seller capacity are connected to product, terminal, storage, title, inspection, logistics and payment procedure through independent sources and channels.
How can a Rotterdam or Houston tank storage claim be verified?
The claim must identify the operator, facility, tank, storage customer, current right and an official confirmation channel. Naming a city, terminal or tank farm does not establish product or access.
What should be verified before an EN590 TTT transaction?
Identity and authority, product and volume, title, storage rights, tank and line compatibility, operating window, nomination, Q&Q inspection and synchronisation of payment with title transfer.
How can vessel and IMO information be cross-checked?
Where maritime transport is involved, vessel name, IMO, flag, owner, manager, history, position and operational compatibility are tested against independent registries and maritime sources; a supplied document is insufficient.
What evidence supports a legitimate chain of title?
The chain should identify successive title holders, disposal rights, dates, product, volume, location, contracts and transfer conditions without contradictions or unresolved encumbrances, supported by direct confirmation where possible.
Is a TTT or TTO procedure safe by itself?
No. TTT and TTO are commercial labels, not universal safety protocols. Protection depends on verifying the actual sequence, control of the product, operator acceptance and alignment between delivery, payment and title transfer. The TTT, terminal and title readiness tool helps structure those checks.
What should a seller CIS or KYC/KYB package contain?
It should identify the exact legal name, registry, address, directors, ultimate beneficial owner or UBO, signatory, mandate scope, verifiable contacts and bank beneficiary. A CIS is the counterparty’s initial declaration, not independent proof; it must be tested through counterparty verification and reliable corporate sources.
When does an EN590 transaction require enhanced due diligence and sanctions controls?
The legal scope depends on jurisdiction, parties and each operator’s role. Opaque UBOs, higher-risk jurisdictions, unexplained intermediation, uncertain origin, vessel or flag changes and atypical payments justify enhanced, risk-proportionate controls under the European Commission guidance on sanctions circumvention and due diligence.
Which maritime red flags justify pausing or escalating the review?
AIS gaps or apparent manipulation, frequent name or flag changes, inconsistent owner or manager data, false or unknown flags, unusual ship-to-ship transfers and calls inconsistent with the documents require escalation. The IMO number and vessel data should be checked in IMO GISIS, and indicators assessed against official guidance such as the OFAC maritime advisory.
Does a sanctions match or risk alert prove fraud?
Not by itself. An official designation may have legal effect in the relevant jurisdiction, but a name match or unverified warning does not establish identity or fraud. Identifiers, UBO, ownership or control, date and current legal text must be checked against sources such as the European Union’s official sanctions resources.
Next step
Present the procedure and documents before accepting financial conditions
Request an initial assessment
Intelligence HubExamine the EN590 case →