Recent matters — anonymised.
Illustrative examples of matters across investigations, intelligence, warrant-related compliance, risk advisory, due diligence, and asset tracing.
Investigations · Corporate
Suspected procurement fraud in a multinational supply chain
Mandate. Instructing general counsel suspected collusion between procurement staff and a long-standing supplier across three operating regions. Counsel required an evidence-grade investigation that could support disciplinary proceedings and, if warranted, civil recovery.
Method. Forensic email and document review across four custodians; vendor-payment reconciliation against contracted rates and approved scopes; structured interviews with named procurement staff under counsel’s oversight; verification of supplier ultimate beneficial ownership through registries in two jurisdictions; chain of custody maintained from first collection.
Outcome. Two parallel kick-back streams identified, totalling a material multi-million figure over five years; documented evidence pack delivered to counsel; client conducted internal proceedings on counsel’s direction and recovered a significant proportion of misappropriated value.
Intelligence · Financial Institutions
Pre-onboarding integrity assessment, high-net-worth ultimate beneficial owner
Mandate. A regulated wealth manager was preparing to onboard a substantial new client and required enhanced due diligence on the proposed UBO ahead of committee review. The UBO’s declared wealth source involved three operating businesses across two jurisdictions and a private investment vehicle.
Method. Source-of-wealth reconstruction from corporate filings, regulatory disclosures, and public commentary; integrity review across litigation databases, sanctions lists, and adverse media; verification of operating businesses through registries and trade-press confirmation; jurisdictional risk review of the investment vehicle and its administrators.
Outcome. Onboarding committee received a structured EDD report meeting enhanced-risk requirements; one declared business activity could not be independently corroborated and was flagged; committee deferred onboarding pending client clarification, which was provided and verified separately.
Warrant Support · Legal
Multi-jurisdiction production-demand coordination
Mandate. Instructing counsel acting in a cross-border commercial dispute required coordinated lawful production of records from custodians located in three jurisdictions, each with distinct discovery and data-protection regimes. Our role was to coordinate lawful collection on counsel’s direction.
Method. Jurisdictional review of permissible collection methods in each location; identification of local counsel of record where domestic intervention was required; coordination of evidence collection through licensed local providers; chain of custody and authentication standards applied uniformly across all jurisdictions; data-protection lawful-basis register maintained.
Outcome. Production complete within counsel’s requested timeframe; all collected material admitted in the proceeding without successful challenge to chain of custody or lawful basis.
Risk Advisory · Government / NGO
Operating risk assessment for a sanctioned-adjacent jurisdiction
Mandate. A multilateral institution required an independent operating-risk assessment ahead of resuming a programme in a jurisdiction adjacent to comprehensive sanctions. The assessment had to address sanctions exposure, security risk to personnel, counterparty integrity, and reputational risk to the institution.
Method. Sanctions-exposure mapping across the programme’s counterparties, financial channels, and goods or services flows; security risk review through specialist local sources; integrity review of intermediaries; structured analytic technique applied to identify scenarios where the programme could create unintended exposure.
Outcome. The institution received a decision-ready assessment identifying two viable operating configurations and one configuration that would have created material sanctions exposure; the programme resumed under the lower-risk configuration with documented controls.
Due Diligence · Corporate
Enhanced diligence on the people behind a target, four jurisdictions
Mandate. A private-equity acquirer required enhanced integrity diligence on the senior management and significant shareholders of an acquisition target. The target was structured across four jurisdictions with named individuals in each location.
Method. Background and litigation review across all four jurisdictions; verification of declared qualifications, credentials, and prior positions; review for adverse media, regulatory action, and political exposure; beneficial-ownership review for opacity that could materially affect the transaction; structured findings against the acquirer’s integrity standard.
Outcome. Two material findings surfaced: a previously undisclosed regulatory censure of a significant shareholder, and an unresolved civil judgment against a named senior manager. The acquirer renegotiated the transaction structure on this basis.
Asset Tracing · Legal
Recovery-quality findings across three offshore structures
Mandate. Counsel acting for a creditor with a substantial unsatisfied judgment instructed us to identify and map assets held through what were believed to be three layered offshore structures. The findings had to be of recovery quality — sufficient to support enforcement applications in the relevant jurisdictions.
Method. Forensic review of available financial records; corporate registry analysis across the relevant jurisdictions; beneficial-ownership reconstruction; identification of nominee arrangements and the bases on which they could be challenged; coordination with local counsel of record to confirm enforcement pathways.
Outcome. Three structures mapped, with documented evidence of beneficial ownership and value; counsel filed enforcement applications in two jurisdictions; significant recovery achieved against assets previously believed to be insulated.
Intelligence · Private Clients
Ongoing monitoring of an identified high-risk individual
Mandate. A principal’s private office identified a specific individual whose conduct toward members of the household had escalated and met the threshold for ongoing monitoring. Counsel and the principal’s security adviser instructed us to provide structured monitoring on a recurring basis, with clear escalation triggers.
Method. Open-source monitoring tuned to identified indicators of escalation; periodic structured assessment against documented thresholds; coordination with the principal’s security adviser and counsel where intervention was required; lawful basis documented and reviewed against the privacy framework applicable to the relevant jurisdiction.
Outcome. Two instances of threshold-crossing conduct identified and escalated in real time, allowing the principal’s adviser to take protective action through lawful channels in advance of any incident.
Investigations · Government / NGO
Internal misconduct allegation, public-sector institution
Mandate. A public-sector institution received a credible internal allegation of misconduct against a senior official. Instructing counsel required an independent investigation conducted to a standard that would withstand internal disciplinary review and, if warranted, referral to an external oversight body.
Method. Independent collection of relevant records; structured interviews under counsel’s direction; verification of allegations against documentary and digital evidence; preservation of audit trail throughout; investigative findings presented against the institution’s own conduct standards.
Outcome. Two of the four allegations substantiated to the standard required; institution conducted internal proceedings on counsel’s direction; one allegation referred to external oversight on the institution’s decision.
Due Diligence · Private Clients
Pre-appointment integrity, non-executive director candidate
Mandate. The chair of a listed company’s nominations committee required independent integrity diligence on a candidate proposed for a non-executive director appointment ahead of formal recommendation to the board. The candidate had a multi-jurisdiction professional history.
Method. Verification of declared positions, qualifications, and directorships across the candidate’s declared history; review for regulatory action, litigation, and adverse media in each relevant jurisdiction; political-exposure review; conflict-of-interest assessment against the company’s existing engagements.
Outcome. No material adverse findings; one minor declared item required clarification, which was provided and verified; the committee recommended the appointment on the basis of the documented diligence.
Warrant Support · Financial Institutions
Recognition and enforcement of a foreign judgment
Mandate. A financial institution held a foreign judgment against a counterparty whose assets were located in a different jurisdiction than the one where the judgment had been issued. Instructing counsel required jurisdictional analysis and locate-and-identify support for recognition and enforcement.
Method. Review of recognition criteria in the target jurisdiction; identification and verification of the counterparty’s assets through registries and licensed local providers; production of a documented evidence pack supporting the recognition application; coordination with local counsel of record.
Outcome. Recognition application succeeded on the documented evidence; enforcement proceeded against identified assets within the timeframe required.
For more on the standards applied across every matter, see Standards & Governance. For our investigative methodology, see Tools & Methodology. To discuss a specific matter in confidence, contact us.