D1
Business licence copy
Names the fictional Chinese entity. Its identifier is a deliberately invalid demonstration placeholder. Received 2026-09-04 (simulated).
Manual review / fictional example
One supplier. Four names. What actually matches?
The simulated licence and quotation name the same legal entity. The marketplace-to-entity relationship is not independently established. A different pro forma issuer and a third-party payee remain unexplained. Ask for the missing relationship evidence before deciding whether to proceed.
1. What the customer supplied
D2
Marketplace store screenshot
Store name: Harbor Living Direct. The screenshot does not include a verifiable legal-operator field. Received 2026-09-04 (simulated).
D3
Quotation Q-DEMO-07
Issuer: Ningbo Demo Harbor Homeware Co., Ltd.; its address matches D1. Received 2026-09-04 (simulated).
D4
Pro forma invoice PI-DEMO-12
Issuer: Harbor Export Services Ltd. No agreement linking this issuer to the target entity was supplied. Received 2026-09-04 (simulated).
D5
Payment instructions
Beneficiary: Demo Trade Settlement Ltd. Account numbers are omitted. No bank-origin ownership evidence was supplied. Received 2026-09-04 (simulated).
2. Target company identity
- Chinese legal name
- 宁波示例海港家居用品有限公司 (fictional)
- English rendering
- Ningbo Demo Harbor Homeware Co., Ltd. (non-official)
- Unified Social Credit Code
- Not verifiable: intentionally invalid demo identifier
- Registration status
- Active in the simulated lookup only; not a real registry result
- Review / simulated lookup date
- 2026-09-05
- Supplier website
- harbor-homeware.invalid (fictional, not visited)
3. The name and document comparison
MATCH IN SUPPLIED MATERIALS
Licence and quotation
D1 and D3 use the same entity name and registered address. D3's telephone and email cannot be compared because D1 does not show them.
What it means: A matching name and address support document consistency, not document authenticity, signing authority or control of an email account.
D1, D3; compared 2026-09-05 (simulated)RELATIONSHIP UNCONFIRMED
Marketplace store to legal entity
Harbor Living Direct is a store label, not the Chinese legal name. D2 lacks sufficient operator information.
What it means: Ask for the marketplace's legal-operator page and independently compare its company name and USCC with the licence.
D2; reviewed 2026-09-05 (simulated)DIFFERENT ISSUERS
Quotation to invoice
D3 names the target company but D4 names Harbor Export Services Ltd. No agency, export or contracting relationship is evidenced.
What it means: Ask which entity is the contractual seller and request its explanation and supporting agreement. Researching the second entity is outside this one-entity scope.
D3, D4; compared 2026-09-05 (simulated)DIFFERENT BENEFICIARY
Invoice to payee
D5 names Demo Trade Settlement Ltd., different from both the licence and invoice issuer. The reason for third-party collection is not evidenced.
What it means: Request a documented explanation and appropriate authority for collection. Even matching beneficiary names would not confirm bank-account ownership.
D1, D4, D5; compared 2026-09-05 (simulated)4. Risk records and coverage
No real litigation, enforcement, sanctions or regulatory searches were conducted for this fictional example. These categories are NOT CHECKED, not clear. An actual report identifies the source, query date, records obtained and missing or inaccessible coverage separately.
5. What is still needed
- A readable licence with a valid USCC, followed by an independent registry identity check.
- Marketplace operator details establishing the store's legal operator, not just its display name.
- An explanation and documentary basis for the different invoice issuer, including who is the contractual seller.
- An explanation and authority for third-party collection. Bank ownership is not established by this review.
- Independent confirmation through an established company contact channel, not only the salesperson's supplied contact.
Clarification outcome
One clarification round is included. In this simulated case, the supplier's reply said the companies were partners but supplied no supporting document. That statement was recorded as an unverified explanation; it did not resolve the differences.
6. Sources and limitations
- D1-D5: simulated customer-provided materials, received 2026-09-04 and reviewed 2026-09-05. No external URLs or documents exist for these invented exhibits.
- R1: simulated registration lookup illustration dated 2026-09-05. Not an actual government search or evidence of a real registration.
- C1: fictional clarification reply dated 2026-09-05. A supplier assertion, not independent corroboration.
Scope: one mainland Chinese legal entity, up to five documents and one clarification round. This is a document-and-identity consistency review, not a factory visit, product-certification check, forensic document authentication, investigation of related companies or confirmation of bank-account ownership. No safety score or instruction to pay is given. Reports are informational research and are not legal, financial or investment advice.