Define the question before collecting documents
A trading name, a company name and the entity signing an agreement may be different. A useful review starts with the exact legal entity, jurisdiction and activity being proposed. We agree whether the task concerns a service provider, a company structure or the documents for a potential investment.
The mandate specifies the questions to answer and the sources available. It can cover corporate records, claimed regulatory permissions, management credentials and the terms described in supplied documents. It does not assume access to confidential records or non-public ownership information.
Build a traceable evidence file
We compare corporate records with the entity and contact details in the proposal, check the relevant regulator's register and record the date and scope of each search. A register entry for one entity should not be used as evidence for an affiliate with a similar name. For investment services in Romania, the ASF register is a starting point for checking the relevant provider.
The report separates facts confirmed by primary documents, statements supplied by the subject and matters that could not be checked. Where relevant, it can map fee layers, withdrawal provisions and the parties responsible for administration or custody, without making an investment recommendation.
Findings that need further work
An inconsistency can lead to a request for an original document, clarification from the provider or referral to legal counsel. We record what would resolve the question and who needs to answer it. A shared address or a complex structure alone is not proof of misconduct.
The written output can include a source log, an entity chart, a list of discrepancies and questions for the decision-maker. Timing is agreed after scoping and depends on the jurisdictions and records involved. Material changes after the report date require a fresh check.
Evidence is not an assurance of safety
Due diligence cannot establish that every document is authentic, uncover every undisclosed liability or guarantee future performance. A lack of adverse findings does not certify a counterparty as safe. We report the limits of the work alongside the findings.
This service is factual investigation and coordination. It is not a statutory audit, legal opinion, credit rating or personalised recommendation to invest. The client decides how to proceed, with authorised investment providers and other qualified professionals responsible for advice within their own engagements.