Before instructing enhanced due diligence

Enhanced due diligence is most useful when it responds to a specific uncertainty. A board considering a partnership may need to understand ownership and integrity context. An investment team may need to test material claims. A compliance function may need to understand an unresolved relationship. The same volume of research will not answer each of these questions equally well.

Start by identifying the decision, the entities in scope and the consequences of the unresolved issue. Explain what has already been reviewed and where reassurance is weak. Agree the jurisdictions, deadline and expected output. A proportionate mandate also identifies exclusions: information that is irrelevant, inaccessible lawfully or better assessed by a qualified professional.

Ask how the provider distinguishes allegation from evidence, assesses sources and presents uncertainty. Public databases and adverse reporting can be valuable, but neither should be treated as a complete integrity verdict. Material findings need context, and contradictory evidence should not disappear because it complicates the conclusion.

The report should inform a decision, not certify a counterparty as risk-free. Its date, scope and limitations matter. Consider whether further legal, regulatory or financial advice is required and whether the relationship needs a later refresh. Avoid sending sensitive documents until confidentiality and an appropriate exchange method have been agreed.