The Mirage Deal: When Due Diligence Reveals the Truth

In trade finance, credibility starts with documentation — not declarations. At Financely, every transaction we accept begins with structure, process, and professional review. But sometimes, even with clean packaging on the surface, the truth only reveals itself once the real work begins.

This is one of those cases.

A client approached us with what looked, at first glance, like a compelling opportunity: a $50 million commodities transaction with attractive returns and a confirmed counterparty. The client was confident, had capital on hand for structuring, and provided enough initial information to justify internal onboarding. So, we engaged.

What followed is why due diligence exists — and why we conduct it rigorously every single time.

What the Client Said

They described a “spot” transaction involving ICUMSA 45 sugar from Brazil and Bonny Light crude oil — both supposedly discounted well below global pricing, ready to move with minimal delay. They presented it as a tightly held opportunity with urgency and institutional buyers “already lined up.”

They didn’t claim to be the supplier. They were “close to” the supplier. They weren’t the buyer, either — but they were mandated by someone who was. The classic setup.

What the Documentation Said

Once we began validating the transaction, the story began to change. Documents were delayed. Proof of product couldn’t be verified. Key supplier and port documentation was “coming soon.” The buyer mandate was vague. No inspection reports. No shipping history. No allocation letters. Nothing an institutional lender or issuer could work with.

What initially looked like a deal started to look like a mirage — the kind of deal that circulates through WhatsApp groups and Telegram channels, but falls apart under pressure.

The Real Red Flags

We’ve seen them before. They tend to follow a script:

• ICUMSA 45 sugar priced 30–40% below global market
• Bonny Light crude offered on a spot basis, at $25/barrel
• No proof of past performance or SGS inspection
• No port allocation or refinery documentation
• Buyers and sellers both unverified — or unreachable

And always, always “a friend of a friend.” Urgent. Confidential. Time-sensitive.

What We Did

We followed process. We asked for documentation. We escalated to verification with our network. We issued formal notices of what was required to proceed. We communicated clearly, professionally, and repeatedly.

When no viable proof was produced, we informed the client — respectfully and transparently — that the deal couldn’t move forward. No matter how convinced they were, the paper didn’t back it up. We closed the file. We moved on.

And Then?

In some cases, clients appreciate the clarity. In others, they respond by rewriting the narrative — claiming they were misled by us, that we failed to deliver, that we “don’t have real providers.” They skip the part where they brought us a deal with no product, no buyer, and no documents. And yes, sometimes people believe them.

So here’s our position, clearly stated:

We don’t fund fiction. We don’t validate stories. We don’t move deals based on energy, conviction, or WhatsApp PDFs. We move deals based on proof — and a structure that holds up to scrutiny. If a transaction fails due diligence, that’s not a reflection of our process. It’s proof that the process works.

In trade, there are two worlds: one built on verified documentation, execution, and trust. The other? A fantasy of easy profits, easy oil, and cargo that never shows up.

We live in the first world. And we stand by that — every time.