CASEBOOK
Three investigations, step by step.
What the product actually does with a hard question: a historical sanctions review, a trade-document investigation, and an ownership-chain investigation. Each step below is a live product capability, not a mock-up.
These are demonstration cases. The vessel history in case 1 is real public sanctions-list data. The documents in case 2 are constructed for demonstration. The ownership structure in case 3 reflects a real pattern in UK register data with every party anonymised. In each case the checks shown are the live product checks. None is a client case, and no client data appears on this page.
CASE 1 · POINT-IN-TIME SANCTIONS REVIEW
Listed today, but since when? The 2015 deal hangs on the answer.
A retrospective review question of the kind disputes, chargebacks and regulator letters always ask. A 2015 shipment was carried by a tanker your records call ARGO I. Screening her today returns a sanctions hit, but the listing looks recent: if she was only designated years after the deal, the 2015 transaction may be fine. Was it?
01
Screen the vessel as of the shipment date, not today
One search: the hull's IMO number plus the 2015 transaction date. TrueParty keeps dated snapshots and change records of the lists themselves, back to 2011 for OFAC, so the question "who was listed on that date?" is answered from evidence, not memory.
02
The hull, not the name, is the identity
The IMO search finds the vessel under every name she has sailed. ARGO I turns out to have sailed as M/T SILVER CLOUD, and the hull's history shows two separate listing spells: listed by 17 July 2012 under the old name, removed, then re-listed by 24 August 2019. A name-only check sees only the current listing and none of the history.
03
Precision shown, never implied
The first delisting falls between two snapshots, so the platform reports it exactly that way: removed between 22 October 2015 and 2 April 2016. A window is never silently narrowed to a single day without an official notice to cite.
04
Every claim carries its evidence class
Archived list copy, official change notice, or daily check: each historical statement names the provenance it rests on, and the exact evidence is stored with the report.
OUTCOME
The recent-looking listing was not the first. The 2015 shipment date falls inside the earlier listing spell: the vessel was designated on the transaction date under her previous name. The review concludes with both listing intervals, both names, the hull number and each claim's evidence class cited, exported as a committee-ready PDF.
CASE 2 · TRADE-DOCUMENT INVESTIGATION
The bill was dated three days before the ship arrived.
A bill of lading is presented under a letter of credit, dated just inside the LC's latest shipment date. The parties screen clean. The document is the fraud.
01
Read the document, screen everything on it
A vision model reads the scan: shipper, consignee, notify party, carrier, vessel, cargo. Every party is screened, the cargo is checked against dual-use and prohibition annexes, the vessel by IMO.
02
Check the paper itself
Container numbers are validated against their ISO 6346 check digits, the B/L number against the carrier's own format, declared weights against what a real container can carry, and a house bill's issuer against the official US register of licensed NVOCCs.
03
Test the dates against the physical world
The bill says the goods were shipped on the 12th. The vessel's recorded port calls show her arriving at the load port on the 15th. A bill issued for a ship that had not arrived is flagged as back-dated: the classic letter-of-credit deadline trick, caught against real port-call records rather than the document's own story.
04
Screen against the lists as they stood on the shipment date
A dated document is also screened as of its own date, so a party listed then but delisted since still surfaces in the verdict.
05
Remember every document ever presented
A presentment memory recalls each bill seen before. The same bill re-presented later with altered details, a changed consignee or a new amount, flags immediately as a potential duplicate financing.
OUTCOME
The triage returns a cited verdict: back-dated bill of lading (issue date precedes the vessel's recorded arrival at the load port), with the port-call evidence attached, plus the full screening and documentary results, in a committee-ready PDF the analyst can act on.
CASE 3 · OWNERSHIP & CONTROL (THE 50% RULE)
On no list. Owned, two layers up, by someone who is.
A counterparty screens clean against every sanctions list. UK sanctions law still treats it as designated if a designated person owns more than 50% of it or controls it, through any number of intermediate companies. The exposure lives in the ownership chain, not on any list, and finding it is exactly the work list-based screening cannot do.
01
Walk the chain upward, register to register
Starting from the counterparty, corporate controllers are followed up the ownership graph via their own registration numbers. Only current controllers count: a former owner who ceased years ago can never trigger the finding.
02
Percentages as honest intervals, never point estimates
Registers publish ownership in bands (25 to 50, 50 to 75, 75 to 100 percent). TrueParty multiplies the bands down the chain as intervals: 75-100% of 75-100% guarantees more than 56%, so the threshold is provably crossed. When only the upper bound crosses 50%, the finding says "possible" and routes to review instead of asserting.
03
Control counts, not just shares
The right to appoint and remove directors qualifies as control regardless of percentage. Softer "significant influence" filings are surfaced for review, never auto-confirmed.
04
Screen every endpoint, state every limit
Each person or entity at the top of a chain is screened with the same abstaining matcher used everywhere else. A chain that leaves the covered registers says exactly that, an explicit coverage bound, rather than implying the trail was clean.
OUTCOME
The counterparty is flagged to be treated as designated by extension: a designated person holds 75-100% of a holding company, which holds 75-100% of the counterparty, a guaranteed stake above 56%. The finding renders the chain hop by hop with each band, the list evidence for the designated person, and the escalation it drives in the risk assessment, exported as a committee-ready PDF.
See these run live
All three run in minutes in a live session, on your own examples if you bring them.
