Instrument Verification, Valuation Services & Legal Opinions
Preventing Illusion. Preserving Capital. Enabling Execution.
In the sophisticated world of financial structuring, the costliest errors are rarely technical – they are assumptive. At IFB, we offer an elite suite of verification, legal opinion, and valuation services precisely to shield our clients and selected external parties from engaging in transactions built upon fiction, illusion, or legal insufficiency.
Before one commits time, energy, or capital to a financial transaction, a fundamental question must be posed: Is the underlying asset real, executable, legally enforceable, and fairly valued? Without a definitive answer, any further step – due diligence, drafting, negotiation, even trust – is premature.
Our services provide exactly that definitive answer.
Why Verification Is Indispensable
In the present opaque and intermediated markets, it is not uncommon for well-intentioned investors or structuring parties to waste months coordinating transactions around:
- Instruments with no authenticated existence
- Assets pledged multiple times or held without legal title
- Counterparties who present forged documents, unverifiable custodial claims, or fictitious funds
- Dossiers designed to solicit up-front payments under false pretences
- etc.
- A verified asset is a protected asset.
- A validated structure is an actionable structure.
- A legal opinion is your bulwark against future repudiation.
IFB intervenes at the decisive point - before risk materialises, not after.
In the modern annals of commerce eight transactions illustrate, with almost theatrical brutality, what ensues when verification, valuation, or legal counsel are treated as dispensable formalities.
- Wirecard AG (Germany, 2020) – A DAX-listed darling worth roughly €24 billion disintegrated in a single week after auditors refused to sign off on €1.9 billion “cash” that proved fictitious. Creditors face a €3–4 billion hole; shareholders were wiped out. Markus Braun has been on trial in Munich since December 2022; Jan Marsalek remains a fugitive.
Safeguard: direct, daily SWIFT confirmations from trustee banks and a pre-listing forensic review of Asian revenue would have exposed the missing cash.
- Theranos (United States, 2003-2018) – The blood-testing start-up raised more than US $700 million yet never allowed independent laboratory replication. Investor equity (≈US $600 million) was obliterated. Founder Elizabeth Holmes received 135 months; Ramesh Balwani 155 months.
Safeguard: blind proficiency tests conducted by CLIA-certified laboratories, contractually mandated by investors, would have revealed the technological nullity before Series D.
- Hewlett-Packard’s US $11.1 billion acquisition of Autonomy (2011) – HP relied on a six-hour “virtual due-diligence” and accepted sell-side representations largely untested. About a year later, in November 2012, HP recorded an US $8.8 billion impairment. Autonomy’s CFO Sushovan Hussain is a federal felon (60-month sentence); founder Mike Lynch was acquitted of all charges in June 2024 and died in August 2024, while HP won its civil claim against him in London.
Safeguard: channel-stuffing analytics plus an escrow equal to 15 % of consideration, released only after an audited FY-1 restatement, would have limited the over-payment.
- 1MDB sovereign-bond programme underwritten by Goldman Sachs (2012-13) – Enhanced-yield bonds totalling US $6.5 billion were marketed without verifiable proceeds-control or full beneficial-owner screening. Roughly US $4.5 billion was misappropriated. Ex-Prime-Minister Najib Razak is serving a sentence of 12 years, halved to six by Malaysia’s pardons board in 2024; Goldman has paid more than US $6 billion in global penalties; banker Roger Ng drew 10 years.
Safeguard: politically-exposed-person (PEP) due diligence on Jho Low and a sovereign legal opinion restricting disbursements would have stood in the way of the diversion.
- FTX Digital-Asset Exchange (collapsed 2022) – An US $8.9 billion customer deficit emerged when co-mingled wallets and undocumented loans to Alameda were belatedly uncovered. Founder Sam Bankman-Fried received a 25-year federal sentence plus an US $11 billion forfeiture order.
Safeguard: real-time proof-of-reserves attestation and an independent audit committee veto on related-party lending would have exposed the shortfall early.
- Greensill Capital / Credit Suisse Supply-Chain-Finance Funds (2018-2021) – Receivables were purchased on the strength of Greensill-generated valuations, many lacking debtor acknowledgements. The collapse froze US $10 billion; FINMA found that Credit Suisse had seriously breached its supervisory obligations.
Safeguard: triangulated debtor confirmations for any obligor >10 % of fund exposure and insurer-concentration caps would have flagged the problem before investors were exposed.
- Satyam Computer Services (India, 2004-2009) – Auditors relied on fabricated bank statements showing US $1 billion idle cash. Investor wealth destruction exceeded US $2 billion; chairman B. Ramalinga Raju received a seven-year sentence.
Safeguard: independent bank confirmations via SWIFT and variance analysis of cash-to-EBITDA would have surfaced the fraud.
- Stanford International Bank (Antigua/USA, 1990-2009) – Investors accepted 10 % certificates of deposit without third-party custody verification. Roughly US $7 billion evaporated; Allen Stanford is serving 110 years.
Safeguard: SAS 70 Type II custodial audits and yield-source reconciliations against sovereign curves would have exposed the Ponzi mechanics.
Cross-cutting lessons
- Single-point verifications work. Direct bank, laboratory or debtor confirmations, performed by parties at arm’s length, are the most effective way to expose fabricated assets or unsupported technology claims.
- Escrows and veto rights matter. Allocating 10-15 % of deal value to an escrow contingent on post-closing audit findings materially aligns incentives and deters misrepresentation.
- Governance trumps charisma. In every instance charismatic principals substituted for independent oversight; audit committees with genuine veto power would have checked them.
- Legal counsel must be adversarial, not ceremonial. Accepting seller-drafted warranties, or waiving sovereign-law opinions in the 1MDB bonds, magnified loss severity.
Applied across a transaction’s life-cycle, these safeguards would have exposed each of the eight deceptions above before the losses occurred.
Scope of Services
1. Instrument and/or Issuer Verification
We perform secure and discreet third-party authentication for:
- SBLC, BG, LC, and commercial paper
- MTNs, bonds, T-bills, structured notes
- SKRs, custodial statements, proof-of-funds
- Asset-backed and derivative-linked instruments
- Banks or financial entities
- etc.
Verification channels include inter alia:
- SWIFT messaging via authenticated BICs
- Direct inquiries to Euroclear, Clearstream, or custodian banks
- On-chain asset and smart-contract validation (where applicable)
- Analysis of underlying legal documentation, ownership continuity, and enforceability
2. Independent Legal Opinions
Where required, IFB Bank can issue or procure legal opinions confirming:
- Legal existence and ownership of the asset
- Jurisdictional compatibility
- Authority of the signatory or issuer
- Validity and enforceability of obligations under applicable law
Our opinions are issued by experienced counsel, admissible to most institutional counterparties and underpinned by extensive precedent.
3. Valuation Services
Indicative or formal valuations may be provided for a wide array of instruments, covering:
- Market comparables and liquidity profile
- Discounted cash flow and credit-adjusted pricing
- Collateral adequacy and macroeconomic sensitivity
For Clients and Non-Clients Alike
Our services are available to:
- IFB Clients, as part of onboarding, investment structuring, or custodial transfer
- Non-Clients, selectively and subject to compliance approval and indemnification
We advise all parties - before committing to any financial engagement - to verify first.
No reputable transaction has ever collapsed because of too much verification.
Many have collapsed for lack of it.
Verification, Valuation & Legal Opinion Fee Schedule
All services rendered by IFB Bank in the context of asset verification are charged either at the hourly rates in table B1 or as a flat fee based on the nominal value of the financial instrument or asset being assessed (table B2):
Verification or Initial Auditing Fees
B1 – Professional fees per hour (EUR)
| Professional | Hourly fee (EUR) |
|---|---|
| Senior partner / counsel | 650 |
| Legal associate | 475 |
| Auditor / accountant | 250 |
| Engineer / technical expert | 475 |
| Administrative support | 120 |
Fees include verification via custodial inquiry or SWIFT, a formal valuation report and, where applicable, a legal memorandum or enforceability opinion. Fees are payable in advance unless otherwise agreed in writing and are exclusive of VAT where applicable. Each quote applies to a single instrument; bundled submissions are assessed separately. Please complete the mandate and return it to legal@infiba.com.
B2 – Verification fees, flat (EUR)
| Verification | Fee (EUR) |
|---|---|
| Assets or financial instruments up to €10 million | 4,999 |
| Assets or financial instruments above €10 million to €50 million | 9,998 |
| Assets or financial instruments above €50 million to €100 million | 14,997 |
| Assets or financial instruments above €100 million | 19,996 |
| Verification of a bank or financial institution | 4,999 |
Fees include verification via custodial inquiry or SWIFT, a formal valuation report and, where applicable, a legal memorandum or enforceability opinion. Fees are payable in advance unless otherwise agreed in writing and are exclusive of VAT where applicable. Each quote applies to a single instrument; bundled submissions are assessed separately. Please complete the mandate and return it to legal@infiba.com.
Valuation Services Fee Table
Applicable to financial instruments, structured assets, private equity holdings, and project-based valuations.
Valuation fees
| Valuation category | Instrument type | Base fee (EUR) | Turnaround | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Standard valuation | Liquid instruments (for example MTNs, bonds, LCs, SBLCs) | 3,500 | 2–4 business days | Market-based valuation and issuer screening |
| Complex valuation | Structured products, hybrid notes, exotic derivatives | 7,500 | 5–7 business days | Valuation model and scenario testing |
| Private equity and unlisted holdings | Shares in private companies, SPVs, funds | 9,500 | 5–10 business days | Discounted cash flow and NAV-based assessment |
| Real-asset-linked instruments | Asset-backed notes, SKRs backed by real estate, gold or commodities | 8,000 | 5–7 business days | Collateral documentation required; independent asset verification may apply |
| Project-based valuation | Infrastructure, energy or real estate project notes or cash flow rights | 12,500 | 7–12 business days | Risk matrix and sensitivity analysis |
| Valuation opinion with legal endorsement (add-on) | Any of the above | +2,500 | +2 business days | Signed by the bank’s legal counsel or a retained external law firm |
| Expedited processing (optional) | Any category | +30% | 24–48 hours | Subject to prior acceptance by our valuation committee |
- Fees quoted are per instrument or asset. Bulk or portfolio discounts may be negotiated.
- All prices are exclusive of VAT or applicable taxes.
- Fees include a formal valuation certificate suitable for internal decision-making or third-party presentation.
- Subject to AML/KYC compliance prior to engagement.
Legal Services Fee Table
Independent Legal Opinions, Structuring Support, Transactional Review & Advisory
Legal service fees
| Legal service | Description | Base fee (EUR) | Turnaround | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Instrument legality opinion | Enforceability analysis of SBLCs, BGs, MTNs, LCs and similar | 4,500 | 3–5 business days | Issuer and counterparty review; analysis of governing jurisdiction |
| Asset transfer opinion | Transferability, title, lien status or pledge structure | 5,500 | 5–7 business days | Legal risk and encumbrance status in the relevant jurisdiction |
| Transactional legal opinion | Review of the full transaction structure (buyer, seller, third parties) | 9,500 | 5–10 business days | Execution risk, regulatory compliance and enforceability |
| Structuring memorandum | Design and legal rationale of an SPV, trust, holding or fund structure | 12,000 | 7–12 business days | Flowchart, intercreditor ranking and fiduciary mapping |
| Cross-border legal feasibility report | Multi-jurisdictional mapping of asset flows and regulatory constraints | 14,500 | 10–15 business days | With external counsel as required |
| Legal advisory conference | One-hour Zoom with the legal department or retained counsel | 750 | Subject to booking | Written summary on request |
| Document review and redlining | Legal review of one contract of up to 15 pages | 1,950 | 2–3 business days | Additional pages: 75 per page |
| Compliance letter or KYC confirmation | Official letter confirming compliance receipt or AML/KYC validation | 1,250 | 1–2 business days | Requires prior internal clearance |
| Expedited delivery (optional) | Any legal service | +40% | 48 hours or less | Subject to complexity and capacity |
General Conditions:
- All fees quoted are exclusive of VAT or applicable taxes.
- Services requiring external counsel will be pre-quoted and agreed upon in writing.
- All services are subject to client due diligence and non-engagement conflicts.
- Formal legal opinions are issued on IFB letterhead or by retained law firms.
Procedure for Submission of Documentation for Verification, Valuation, or Legal Assessment
All requests for instrument verification, asset valuation, or legal assessment must follow the procedure outlined below to ensure proper handling, confidentiality, and compliance:
1. Submission of Documentation
Please send all relevant documents in PDF format to: legal@infiba.com
Your email must indicate the nature of the requested service by specifying one or more of the following in the subject line:
- “Verification Request”
- “Valuation Request”
- “Legal Assessment Request”
Include in the body of the email:
- Full name and contact details of the requesting party
- Entity name and jurisdiction (if corporate)
- A short description of the asset, instrument, or legal matter
- The objective of the assessment (e.g. due diligence, transaction readiness, regulatory compliance, etc.)
2. Review and Quotation
Our legal and compliance team will conduct a preliminary documentation review upon receipt. If the documents are in good order, we will issue a Pro Forma Invoice outlining the scope of work, fees, timeline, and applicable terms.
3. Payment of Fees
Work shall commence only upon receipt of payment in full as per the invoice. Payment instructions will be provided within the Pro Forma Invoice. Delayed or partial payments will result in postponement or cancellation of the engagement.
4. Commencement of Work
Following confirmed receipt of funds, our designated professionals will initiate the verification, valuation, or legal opinion process. All findings, reports, or conclusions will be issued in writing and delivered to the email address on record.
Important Notes
- All services are subject to strict client confidentiality and governed by our internal compliance protocols.
- Should the documentation be incomplete or incompatible with regulatory expectations, we reserve the right to decline any assignment without justification.
International Finance Bank LTD
Compliance & Legal Department
legal@infiba.com
How to Proceed
To request a verification and later if successful a valuation or initiate a legal opinion, please contact our Legal & Verification Division or book a confidential videoconference (here).
