Whether you are awarding public money, tracing assets after a collapse, preparing a claim against a director, or simply trying to get paid for work you have already done — the question is the same. Is this entity what it claims to be, and who is really behind it?
A government agency assessing a tender, a liquidator reconstructing a related-party network, and a subcontractor deciding whether to start work for a builder — these are very different situations. What they share is a decision that has to be made with incomplete information.
The public record rarely tells the full story on its own. Registry data shows entities but not the relationships between them. Websites show the present but not what was edited out. Directors are named, but not necessarily the person actually running the business.
That is the gap we work in.
Is the entity receiving a contract, grant or funding commitment genuinely what it represents itself to be?
Procurement and grant decisions are made on documentation. That documentation is supplied by the applicant. Where the applicant is a company with a short registration history but a long trading identity, or where officeholders have prior failed entities behind them, the paperwork alone will not show it.
We verify the corporate history, the continuity of the trading identity, and the network of entities and individuals connected to the applicant — before the commitment is made rather than after it is questioned.
Where did the assets go, and who was actually in control of this entity before it collapsed?
A liquidation appointment gives you statutory powers. What it does not give you is a map of the related-party network, the history of the trading identity across earlier entities, or the accounts of the people who worked inside the business.
We work alongside that statutory process. Our findings are drawn from lawful, open-source and human sources, and are designed to point your enquiries in the direction the evidence suggests — so that formal powers are used where they are most likely to produce results.
We do not hold statutory powers and we do not replace them. Our role is investigative support — reconstructing the public and human record so that your formal enquiries, examinations and recovery actions can be directed with better information.
Can the pattern we suspect actually be evidenced — and where does the trail lead?
A suspicion of phoenix conduct, unreasonable director-related transactions or breaches of duty is not the same as an evidentiary basis for action. The gap is usually in the timeline: what happened, in what order, and who knew what at the time.
We reconstruct that timeline from independent sources — registry records, certificate logs, domain ownership history, archived site captures and witness accounts — and present it with each finding traceable to its origin.
Findings are reported with source references and a stated confidence level. Single-source material is labelled as such. We supply investigative output — legal characterisation and advice remain with you.
Is the person or entity I am about to go into business with who they say they are?
Partnership and joint venture discussions are conducted on trust, and asking the other side to prove their history can damage a relationship before it has started. That is precisely why this kind of enquiry needs to be handled without the counterparty knowing it is happening.
We verify independently, from public and human sources, without contacting your prospective partner or disclosing your interest. If the history is clean, you proceed with confidence. If it is not, you find out while you still have room to walk away.
Does this sponsorship expose us — and are the rights actually theirs to grant?
Sponsorship decisions carry reputational exposure that outlasts the term of the agreement. The entity you are backing may have a history that is not visible in the proposal deck, and the person offering the rights may not be in a position to grant them.
We verify both: the background and conduct of the entity or individual being sponsored, and the ownership and authority behind the rights being offered.
Is the principal contractor or head contractor solvent, and do they have a history of leaving subcontractors behind?
Subcontractors carry the most concentrated risk in any project. You mobilise labour, plant and materials on the strength of a promise to be paid later — and if the entity above you fails, you are an unsecured creditor with work already done.
A registry search tells you the company exists. It does not tell you that the same trading name has been used across a series of entities that have each been wound up owing money to subcontractors. We do.
The same analysis works in the other direction. Principals and head contractors use us to verify subcontractors before awarding packages, and to confirm the history behind a business name that may have traded under several different entities.
We also act for franchisors vetting prospective franchisees, procurement and supply chain teams, private investors and family offices, and insolvency practitioners requiring investigative support.
A director search returns names. It does not show that the same six people have appeared across twenty liquidations, or that four of them are related to one another. That picture only emerges when officeholders are cross-mapped against each other.
A domain registered in 2009, a trading name reused across every entity, a phone number that never changed. To a customer or counterparty the business looks continuous. Legally it is a series of separate companies, each wound up.
A liquidation is a matter of record. Whether payments were routinely late, whether contractors were strung along, whether the same people walked away and started again — that lives with the people who were there, not in a database.
Send through the entity, the decision you are facing and what you already know. We will confirm scope, timing and the appropriate investigation level.
Email Sentinel Due Diligence