Step-by-step method
A reproducible path from question to conclusion.
- 1
Fix entity and jurisdiction
Collect legal name, form, official number, registered address, country and used domain. Trading names and translations can refer to multiple companies.
- 2
Return to the competent registry
Check status, incorporation, registered officers, available filings and dissolution or proceedings notices, recording the consultation date.
- 3
Build the history
Align name, address, capital, officer, published shareholder and object changes. Gaps become questions to explain, not accusations.
- 4
Map relationships
Connect subsidiaries, parent entities, lawfully accessible beneficial ownership, appointments and shared addresses. Administrative proximity does not prove operational coordination.
- 5
Test material claims
Corroborate licences, team, cited clients, locations, assets and references independently. Request documents where public sources are insufficient.
- 6
Write decision conditions
Classify confirmed, clarification, incompatible and unverifiable points. State validity date and events that should trigger another review.
Resolve legal identity first
A website may use a brand different from the contracting company. Verify which entity invoices, receives funds, employs people or holds the licence.
Namesakes are common. Multiple matching identifiers are needed before attributing an officer, proceeding or address.
Read appointments in context
A former appointment can be legitimate, a registered director may not control activity alone and a shared address may be a normal serviced office. Chronology and jurisdiction change interpretation.
State exactly what the registry establishes, then compare it with current company claims and available original documents.
Make due diligence decision-oriented
A useful output is not a people inventory. It connects findings to partnership risks involving funds, data, reputation, access, compliance or dependency.
Each unconfirmed point should lead to a document request, condition, additional control or scope limit.
What to check and what to record
Use this grid to turn the method into a reviewable case file. A missing item remains an open question. The interpretation limit prevents a finding from becoming an unsupported conclusion.
| Check | Useful record | Interpretation limit |
|---|---|---|
| Registration | Stable identifier, legal name and dated register status. | Do not merge companies with similar names. |
| Appointment | Appointment document, effective date and possible termination. | A former role can remain displayed on a profile. |
| Control | Documented ownership links and lawful information access. | A shared address does not prove common control. |
Common pitfalls
Four shortcuts that weaken the result.
Searching only the trading name
The brand may hide the entity contracting or receiving funds.
Adding weak signals together
Multiple details from one source do not become independent evidence.
Overreading a shared address
It may be ordinary company formation or serviced-office use.
Forgetting the date
A registry or page describes a given state, not necessarily the present.
Practical questions
Frequently asked questions.
Is an official registry enough?
It is central for recorded facts but does not confirm every claimed activity, relationship or capability.
Can beneficial ownership be checked?
Availability and access conditions vary. Use only lawful routes proportionate to the decision.
How should a discrepancy be handled?
Describe both sources, dates and scope, then request a targeted explanation or document.
Public references
DATA INPI — RNE. Company records and filed material; verify scope and dates.
Editorial scope
Published by Internet Intelligence Service on 15 September 2026. Last content update: 7 October 2026. This educational guide describes a lawful, defensive method. It is not legal advice, an emergency service or authority instruction.