Case study · Due diligence · Georgia → Ukraine

A Tbilisi founder almost paid a Ukrainian company that wasn't who it claimed

He had found a supplier, agreed the terms, and already sent the first payment. Before the larger one went out, he asked us to check who he was actually dealing with. The ownership did not match the story he had been told.

Request a check — from $149 Read the case

This case is anonymized. Names, figures, jurisdictions and identifying details have been changed or masked to protect client confidentiality. It reflects the structure and outcome of real Argus due diligence work, not a single identifiable client.

The situation

A founder in Tbilisi runs a small import business. He found a Ukrainian supplier online, liked the price, and the website looked legitimate. The first invoice was already paid. The next order was larger, around six figures, with full payment due before shipping.

On the phone the company stayed vague about who owned it, and that bothered him enough to stop. He sent us the company name and one question:

"Are these people who they say they are?"

That is all we need to start. A name, a country, and the contract draft.

What we checked

Every fact below was cross-checked against several independent sources. The report gives interpretation and a verdict, not raw data to decode.

🏛️
Legal status & owners
Registration, current standing, directors, and the real people behind the company.
🧩
Beneficial ownership (UBO)
The full control chain, past any nominees or intermediaries.
🚫
Sanctions & PEP screening
OFAC, EU and UN lists for the company and everyone tied to it.
🛡️
Russia-link analysis
War-time Compliance — ownership traced through transit jurisdictions.
⚖️
Court & debt records
Open litigation, enforcement proceedings and tax debt.
📡
Asset verification (GEOSINT)
Satellite imagery to confirm the warehouse the company advertised.

What we found

Key finding · hidden ownership

On paper the supplier looked like an independent Ukrainian company with a local owner. It was not. Control ran through an intermediary holding registered in a transit jurisdiction — a layer the company never mentioned, and one the local registry alone would not have shown. The person the founder thought he was dealing with did not actually control the business.

Fail Ownership
Declared
Independent Ukrainian supplier, owned locally.
Observed
Control held through an undisclosed intermediary holding registered abroad.
Warn Assets (GEOSINT)
Declared
Own warehouse, about 4,000 m².
Observed
Satellite imagery showed a building roughly a quarter of that size, with no sign of the facility described.
Warn Court & debt
Declared
Clean record.
Observed
One open enforcement proceeding against the company over an unpaid debt.
Warn Sanctions exposure
Declared
No sanctions concern.
Observed
No direct hit on the company itself, but the intermediary's jurisdiction is a known route around screening, so we flagged it.

The verdict

38 / 100
Argus Verdict
CAUTION — proceed only with conditions, or walk away
The company is real and active, with no direct sanctions hit. But the ownership was misrepresented, the main asset could not be confirmed, and there is an open debt proceeding. For a six-figure prepayment, that is enough to stop and renegotiate.
Subject: "████████ TRADE" LLC (anonymized) · Ukraine

What it saved the client

<$400
cost of the check
~$120K
paid up front, at risk

The founder did not cancel blindly. He went back to the supplier with the questions the report told him to ask: proof of the warehouse, an explanation of the ownership, and payment in stages tied to delivery. The supplier would not agree to any of it. He walked away and kept his money.

Under $400 against $120,000 of exposure. That is the trade due diligence makes.

Before your next payment to Ukraine, know who's on the other end

Send us the company or person and we'll come back with scope, price and timing. No signup, no obligation.

Request a check — from $149 See how it works
Or reach us directly: @argus_int · [email protected]