Independence & Compliance
Periplus maintains strict independence: no equity interests, no trading positions, and no contingent stakes in matters on which it advises. Periplus does not lobby, make representations to officials on behalf of clients, or seek official acts. Its role is intelligence, analytical synthesis, and advisory judgement.
Engagements are conducted under UK, US, and EU sanctions and anti-corruption regimes, the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, and applicable data protection law. Each mandate is screened for conflicts, ethics, and independence before acceptance.
Compliance Protocol, Litigation-Support and Privilege Framework, and Due Diligence Pack are available on request.
Client identities are held exclusively by Periplus principals and are not disclosed to interlocutors, field researchers, or any third party. Collection, coordination, and synthesis are structurally separate. No engagement detail is disclosed to any party without express client consent.
The networks are not assembled per mandate or rented from local fixers. They are standing relationships, many predating the firm, built over years of field presence and sustained through cycles of political and commercial change. Depth of this kind cannot be stood up on demand; it is the accumulated product of long engagement in the relevant jurisdictions, in the relevant languages.
Methodological independence is foundational. Interlocutors work independently within their own professional networks, each conducting discrete conversations without visibility into the research of others or the analytical picture their contribution enters. The separation ensures objectivity: the picture emerges only when fragments are reconciled, tested for divergence, and synthesised by principals and senior advisers.
For investment and transaction mandates: written analytical reports and executive briefings. For counsel-led matters: chronologies, corroboration notes, and intelligence assessments to inform case strategy and positioning, or to identify pathways toward admissible evidence — witnesses, documents, and independently verifiable facts that counsel can develop for proceedings. For arbitration: expert reports and testimony. All findings separate what is established from what is corroborated and what remains unresolved, with confidence assessments throughout.
Periplus operates within litigation privilege and legal professional privilege frameworks, instructed by counsel. Intelligence findings are not themselves admissible evidence; they identify the witnesses, documents, and verifiable facts through which admissible material can be developed by counsel. In enforcement matters, identifying an asset is rarely the difficulty; establishing who protects it, and through which political and institutional relationships, is what determines whether it can be reached. Raw interview records and source documentation are retained by Periplus and available to support privilege assertions or chain-of-custody requirements. Expert reports and testimony are available for proceedings before LCIA, ICC, ICSID, SCC, SIAC, HKIAC, and DIAC tribunals, and before the English and US courts.
Findings are presented completely and objectively, including where they are inconclusive, contradict working assumptions, or reveal facts that were not anticipated. Where sources diverge, this is noted; where a finding is single-sourced rather than corroborated, this is stated. A complete intelligence picture is more useful than a selective one, and early identification of an unexpected fact is more valuable than late discovery.
Periplus complements rather than displaces counsel and financial advisers. Intelligence is typically shared directly with counsel under privilege, and findings are sequenced around litigation and transaction timetables. Periplus does not require exclusivity and has no interest in duplicating advisory work already under way.
With client consent, yes. For committee-level matters involving multiple institutional parties, Periplus can structure an engagement serving a group of principals under a single confidentiality framework, and consents to clients sharing deliverables with co-investors or committee members where the client determines this serves the mandate.
Source identities are never disclosed to clients. Findings are presented as intelligence assessments, not attributed statements. Where a source's institutional role is material to the credibility of a finding, it is described by category — a senior official within the relevant ministry, a serving regulatory executive — without identification. This protection is unconditional and does not vary by client or mandate. Where source information moves toward evidentiary use, the source is consulted and must consent; those who agree to provide formal statements or testimony do so with full understanding of the implications.
Networks are pre-established across 85 jurisdictions in Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, and Southeast Asia, extending systematically to sub-national and provincial levels — the layer at which regulatory decisions are executed, community consent is determined, and political dynamics play out in practice. This sub-national depth is not replicated by generalist political-risk providers. Coverage is not claimed where it does not exist: mandates are accepted only where Periplus holds embedded interlocutor relationships in the relevant jurisdiction and sector, confirmed at scoping before instruction is accepted.
Project mandates typically run three to five weeks from scoping to delivery. Urgent briefs can be turned within days where pre-established networks cover the jurisdiction and sector. Disputes and enforcement mandates are sequenced around litigation or arbitration timetables. Retainer arrangements provide standing network activation without a scoping period.
If pre-engagement scoping indicates a mandate is unlikely to produce material intelligence, Periplus will say so before accepting instruction. Fees are never contingent on findings reaching any particular conclusion.
No payments of any kind are made to sources; information is provided freely, rooted in trust relationships developed over years. Interlocutor compensation is for research services only and is never contingent on findings. A five-stage anti-bribery verification process applies to every engagement: pre-engagement training and contractual prohibitions; real-time written attestations with each research submission; quality review cross-referencing against public sources; post-submission verification on high-risk engagements; and payment withheld pending completion of all stages.
Periplus does not conduct surveillance, intercept communications, or engage in any activity requiring authorisation under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 or the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
Interlocutors must confirm they hold no current role as a public official or government contractor. Former officials are subject to enhanced due diligence, including assessment of potential conflicts, ongoing access concerns, and compliance with post-employment restrictions.
Each mandate is screened for sanctions exposure before acceptance, and interlocutors are screened against UK, US, EU, and UN sanctions lists before deployment. The firm does not engage with designated persons or entities. Jurisdiction-specific compliance procedures apply. The Compliance Protocol is available on request.
Each mandate is screened for conflicts before acceptance. The firm does not act for opposing parties in the same matter, or where prior engagement knowledge would create an informational advantage. Conflict checks cover principals, senior advisers, and the relevant segment of the interlocutor network.