Before a large payment, check the company and the transaction
Registration confirms that a legal entity exists. It does not explain who actually controls the company, whether the signatory has the necessary authority, whether the stated activity is being carried out, or why the funds should be sent to the stated recipient.
Before transferring funds, one can check the corporate structure, beneficial owners, business reality, litigation and sanctions circumstances, related companies, the parties' authority and the actual enforceability of key obligations.
- Company and owners
- Transaction and authority
- International verification
- Legitimate sources
- counterparty
- verification
- condition
- payment
Payment fixes the risk before the real picture becomes clear
A certificate of registration, a website and a signed contract may look convincing, but they answer only part of the questions. A company may exist formally while having no stated operating activity, may have recently changed owners, may use a different payee, or may depend on related persons not disclosed in the transaction documents.
Verification before payment is not intended to find a formal pretext for refusal. Its task is to establish the material circumstances, separate confirmed information from the counterparty's statements, and determine which conditions need to be changed before the transfer of funds.
- 01
The payee differs from the contracting party
Payment is proposed to be sent to a related company, an agent, a payment intermediary or a legal entity in another jurisdiction.
- 02
The ownership structure is not explained
The documents show a formal owner, but it is unclear who makes decisions and receives the economic benefit.
- 03
The terms require a large advance payment
The size of the prepayment does not correspond to any clear business logic, security, or the actual stage of performance.
- 04
The information is inconsistent
The company's address, team, track record, authority, financial statements or experience are not confirmed by independent sources.
Before payment, not one document but seven related areas are checked
Each area answers a separate question. The decision is made only after they are compared: a legally existing company may not control the subject matter of the transaction, and an authorized signatory may not have the right to assume a specific obligation.
Diagram of seven areas around the «Payment» node: legal entity, ownership, authority, operational reality, obligations, exposure and payment route. For each area, the question, the content of the verification and the result are given.
Does the company exist in the form it claims to?
Registration, current status, date of incorporation, address, history of changes in the register and correspondence of the data to what is stated in the contract and on the website.
- current registration extract and status
- history of changes of address, name and management
- discrepancies between the register and the transaction documents
Who actually controls the company?
Direct and indirect owners, ultimate individuals, related companies, signs of nominee ownership and actual centers of decision-making.
- ownership chart with levels of confirmation
- ultimate individuals where they can be disclosed
- related structures and overlapping interests
Is the declared activity actually conducted?
Indicators of actual operation: team, infrastructure, business contacts, public traces of activity and their correspondence to the scale of the transaction
- observed indicators of activity and their sources
- correspondence of the company's scale to the subject of the contract
- the gap between the public image and confirmable facts
Are there circumstances capable of preventing performance?
Litigation, signs of insolvency, pledges, encumbrances, enforcement proceedings and publicly available information on material claims
- list of known disputes and claims
- encumbrances and indicators of financial pressure
- assessment of how this affects the enforceability of the contract
Are there limitations that should be known before the transfer?
Sanctions matches, ownership and control, PEP connections, jurisdictional limitations and reputational circumstances of connected persons
- screening result with the grounds stated
- connected persons and jurisdictions requiring attention
- questions requiring separate legal assessment
Why should the funds go to this particular recipient?
Correspondence of the recipient to the party to the contract, the role of the intermediary, the explicability of the country, bank, currency and settlement structure
- comparison of the party to the contract and the recipient of funds
- the intermediary's role and the business logic of the route
- conditions under which the route should be changed
- connection established
- claimed but not confirmed
- material discrepancy or condition
The verification must answer the questions that change the payment decision
- Company
- Status, date of registration, history of changes, addresses, directors, declared types of activity and indicators of actual operation
- Ownership and control
- Direct and indirect owners, ultimate individuals, connected companies, nominee indicators and actual centres of decision-making
- Authority
- The signatory's right to represent the company, limitations, powers of attorney, corporate approvals and authority for the specific transaction
- Subject matter of the transaction
- The company's connection to the asset, goods, right or service that is the subject of the contract
- Obligations
- Litigation, signs of insolvency, pledges, encumbrances, enforcement proceedings and publicly available information on material claims
- Reputation and connections
- Business history, connected persons, recurring conflicts, reputational episodes and discrepancies between the public image and confirmable facts
- Sanctions exposure
- Direct matches, ownership and control, PEP connections, jurisdictional limitations and other factors requiring separate legal assessment
- Money route
- Correspondence of the recipient to the contract, the role of the intermediary, the explicability of the country, bank, currency and payment structure
The depth of verification depends on the decision, not on the number of documents found
- 01
Company Check
Suitable when a single company, its owners, management, activity and main risks need to be verified before an ordinary commercial payment
Result: Brief corporate profile, ownership structure, key discrepancies and risk notes.
- 02
Contract Check
Suitable when the risk relates not only to the company but to a specific contract: authority, subject matter, obligations, recipient and performance.
Result: Matrix of deal terms and a list of questions to be closed before the transfer.
- 03
Corporate Due Diligence
Suitable for a large amount, several companies, a complex ownership structure, international payments or a high cost of error.
Result: Corporate dossier, ownership map, risk matrix and grounds for a decision.
The check begins with the decision the client is about to make
- 01
Initial contact
The client provides the company name, the estimated amount, the timeframe and the purpose of payment, without transferring sensitive documents.
- 02
Admissibility check
The lawfulness of the request, conflicts of interest, available sources and the ability to perform the task safely are assessed.
- 03
Defining the scope
Company Check, Contract Check or Corporate Due Diligence is selected.
- 04
Collection and comparison
Registers, corporate data, documents, open sources and related circumstances are checked.
- 05
Verification of discrepancies
Material conclusions are given a source, a level of confidence and limitations.
- 06
Result before payment
The client receives a structured picture and a list of conditions that can be confirmed, changed or further verified.
Not a stack of extracts, but a structure of circumstances affecting the payment
Corporate Profile
Confirmed registration information, history of changes, management and indicators of operating activity.
Ownership Map
Visual diagram of formal ownership, ultimate individuals, related companies and the level to which connections are confirmed.
Payment Route Review
Comparison of the contracting party, the recipient of funds, intermediaries, jurisdictions and the stated business rationale.
Risk Matrix
Material circumstances, divided into confirmed facts, discrepancies, limitations and questions for decision.
Decision Notes
A list of practical options: proceed, change the terms, request confirmation, use security, or suspend the decision.
Source Appendix
Sources and documents underlying the material conclusions, with an indication of their availability limitations.
A formally active company - but the payment was meant to go to another party
A composite example built on typical circumstances. It does not describe any single client.
The buyer was preparing to transfer a large advance payment to an equipment supplier. The company was registered, had a website and provided a contract. Shortly before payment, the counterparty changed its payment details and proposed transferring the funds to a related legal entity in another jurisdiction.
The check confirmed the supplier's existence but revealed a recent change of owner, limited authority of the signatory, no confirmed connection between the payment recipient and the subject of the contract, and business ties between the new owner and a company that had previously ceased operations after a series of disputes.
These circumstances did not prove fraud. They changed the level of risk and required additional conditions: confirmation of authority, an explanation of the recipient's role, agreement on a staged payment and independent verification of performance.
Result: The client received grounds not for an emotional refusal, but for changing the structure of the payment before regaining control of the situation would have become more difficult.
The check does not make the decision for the client - it shows the available options
Proceed
The material circumstances are confirmed, and the limitations identified correspond to the accepted level of risk.
Change the terms
The payment is split into stages, with security, escrow, confirmation of performance or additional corporate approval added.
Request confirmation
The counterparty is sent a list of specific documents and explanations regarding the identified discrepancies.
Suspend
Material questions remain unconfirmed or cannot be safely closed before the payment deadline.
Three engagement formats - depending on the subject, amount and complexity of the structure
- 01
Company Check
from €3,500
typically 5-8 business days
For a single company and a basic check of owners, management, activity, history and key risks.
- 02
Contract Check
from €3,000
typically 4-7 business days
For verification of a specific contract, authority, recipient, subject matter and key circumstances of performance.
- 03
Corporate Due Diligence
from €7,500 to €18,000
typically 10-20 business days
For a complex structure, multiple jurisdictions, a large amount, or an elevated cost of error.
Final scope, timeline and cost are confirmed after an initial assessment of the structure, jurisdictions, available data and the decision to be made.
A check reduces uncertainty but does not create a guarantee of performance
- lawful and agreed sources are used
- availability of information depends on the jurisdiction
- the absence of negative information does not prove the absence of risk
- sanctions, legal, tax and financial conclusions may require a separate assessment by a specialist in the relevant field
- BLACKFILE does not guarantee performance of a contract, return of a payment, or the absence of future events
- conclusions carry a date as of which they are current
- sensitive documents are not to be sent through the initial form
- BLACKFILE reserves the right to decline a matter in the case of an unlawful purpose, conflict of interest, or risk of misuse
If the risk extends beyond one company
When the formal owner does not explain actual control
Identifying the hidden beneficial owner of a corporate structureThe formal structure led to nominee owners. The connections check separated the levels of confirmation and showed the actual center of decision-making.- Corporate fraud and misstatement of accountsif the doubts concern the counterparty's own reporting
- Global asset search for an investment fundif the payment has already been made and the question is what the value has turned into
- How to check a counterparty before a dealpractical material: where to start and what to request independently
What is important to clarify before starting a check
Sometimes this is enough for initial identification, but identical and similar names create a risk of error. It is advisable to provide the country of registration, registration number, website, address or the known name of the manager.
No. At the first stage it is enough to describe the parties, amount, term and purpose of the payment. Documents are provided only after the matter has been reviewed and a secure channel agreed.
Yes, if the task is lawful and verifiable sources are available in the relevant jurisdictions. The depth, timeline and form of the result depend on the countries and the ownership structure.
No. The check establishes the available circumstances and risks as of a specific date, but cannot guarantee the future conduct of a party.
The minimum set of circumstances without which it would be unsafe to make a decision is determined first. Urgency should not turn an incomplete check into the appearance of a complete one.
The agreed scope may include verification of the recipient's role, the intermediary, jurisdiction and the traceability of the route. A banking or sanctions legal assessment, where required, is carried out by a specialist in that field.
Yes, but the amount range and the cost of error help determine the proportionate depth of the check. The exact amount does not need to be provided through the initial form.
Name the company and the decision that must be made before payment
At the first stage, do not send contracts, bank details, personal data or other sensitive materials. A general description is sufficient.