CASE STUDY 02PUBLIC SANITISED EDITION

Petroleum Transaction Due Diligence

LinkedIn-originated approach followed by receipt of a petroleum-trading documentation package.

Executive overview

The engagement originated through a professional LinkedIn contact. The received package required checks of legal identity, authority, mandate, terminal, inspection, chain of title, procedure, beneficiary, vessel and sanctions. The critical classification resulted from the combined pattern of verification gaps and exposure, not one isolated anomaly.

Origin
LinkedIn
Public document
PDF · 4 pages
Methodology
Due Diligence · OSINT · Compliance
Status
Independent verification required

Engagement origin

From a professional contact to enhanced review

Following the LinkedIn-originated contact, petroleum transaction documents were received. A coherent-looking package was not treated as proof of title, authority, custody, lawful provenance or entitlement to payment.

DOCUMENT PACKAGEOFFICIAL INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION

Scope of review

Nine material verification domains

01Legal identity
02Authority and mandate
03Terminal and tank
04Inspection and laboratory
05Chain of title
06Transaction procedure
07Financial exposure
08Vessel and sanctions
09Payment beneficiary

Key risk indicators

Exposure arose from a combined pattern

01⚠ Contracting identity not reconciled with traceable corporate sources without additional KYC.
02⚠ Seller, refinery and intermediary authority pending direct principal confirmation.
03⚠ Terminal, tank and custody not established without independent operator confirmation.
04⚠ Inspection documents insufficient to establish title or control.
05⚠ Buyer financial exposure before verification was complete.
06⚠ Beneficiary and payment account subject to matching the verified entity.
07⚠ Vessel, ownership, management, AIS, port calls and sanctions pending screening.

Control position

Do not advance before material verification is cleared

No funds, cryptocurrency, guarantees, tank-extension payments or banking instruments should be released until entity, authority, allocation, inspection, title, vessel/sanctions and beneficiary have been independently verified.

⚠ CRITICAL RISK · DO NOT PROCEED

The decision remains subject to independent verification and compliance clearance.

Verification methodology

Required gates before any exposure

01

Legal identity, jurisdiction, registration, beneficial ownership and signing authority.

02

Original mandate verified directly with the principal.

03

Independent terminal or tank confirmation.

04

Inspection report authentication through the official channel.

05

Chain of title from producer/exporter to seller.

06

Vessel identity, ownership, management, class, insurance, AIS and sanctions.

07

Product provenance and applicable sanctions controls.

08

Account ownership and beneficiary verification.

09

Written legal/compliance clearance before committing funds.

First page · Public sanitised edition⌕ Enlarge

Public document

View the sanitised case file

The four-page bilingual PDF is the authorised publication boundary. It does not contain the underlying exhibits or excluded identifying information.

View Sanitised Case File

PDF público · Identifying and commercially sensitive information removed

Full first page of Case Study 02
A coherent-looking document pack is not equivalent to verified title, authority, custody, lawful provenance or entitlement to payment.
● DO NOT PROCEED PENDING INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION

This case records a risk assessment based on the documents and verification issues reviewed at the time. It does not determine criminal or civil liability; findings may change if reliable evidence is produced.