Maritime Asset Recovery
Asset recovery lawyers needed to resolve inconsistencies in court-disclosed crude oil cargo records. Operational reporting and vessel tracking established concealed shipments, undisclosed consignees and banking relationships. Witness testimony confirmed deliberate concealment, reframing the recovery effort as fraudulent transfer claims.
Asset recovery lawyers pursuing enforcement in a crude oil cargo dispute faced discovery gaps. Court-ordered disclosure had produced bills of lading, but the records showed inconsistencies: missing vessels, unexplained cargo splits, ambiguous consignees.
The state petroleum company had systematically concealed shipments from its own operational infrastructure, using shadow shipping agents and maintaining dual record systems. Operations formally recorded as non-existent were confirmed through staff who had processed them. Real-time vessel tracking revealed destinations masked through "for orders" clauses: bills of lading showed one port while captains changed course at sea. Cargo splitting revealed multiple undisclosed consignees and banking relationships.
Witness testimony from operational participants confirmed that the concealment was deliberate and directed from above, converting asset recovery into fraudulent transfer claims.
The mandates below are drawn from hundreds of engagements over fifteen years, including work predating Periplus. Specific parties, jurisdictions and instructing firms are protected by confidentiality.