Start with identity, not reputation
Confirm the legal entity, directors, address, operating history, relevant licences, beneficial ownership where possible, and consistency between the party negotiating, signing, invoicing and receiving funds. Differences may be legitimate, but they should be explained before money or sensitive information is exposed.
Declared capacity versus demonstrable capability
Large volumes, exceptional lead times or exclusive access should be tested against facilities, staff, track record, suppliers, contracts or other operational evidence. Capability cannot be inferred from the quality of a commercial presentation.
Payment structure reveals incentives
Disproportionate advances, third-party accounts, last-minute beneficiary changes, artificial urgency or refusal to use verifiable milestones increase risk. Balanced structures link payment to documents, inspection, delivery or acceptance.
Contradictions matter more than incomplete information
Incompatible dates, changing names, untraceable documents, recently created domains or evasive answers do not prove misconduct, but they justify deeper verification or a lower exposure.
The decision is not always accept or reject
Proceeding with conditions may be rational: staged payments, escrow, independent inspection, guarantees, verification conditions or a pilot transaction. The purpose is proportionate exposure, not the illusion of zero risk.
How this analysis was prepared
Directed and reviewed by Juan Carlos Martín Gil. This is a general analytical framework and does not replace transaction-specific legal, tax, financial or technical advice.