Aldergate Commodities: onboarding a metals trader with layered ownership
Aldergate Commodities Trading Ltd, incorporated in England with a Dubai-based sole director, applies for a EUR 25m multicurrency revolving and trade facility to finance non-ferrous metals. The ownership chain runs Aldergate to a Cyprus holding company to a BVI company holding 60%, whose shares are held by a nominee for a Jersey family trust; the remaining 40% sits with a UAE individual. The declared ultimate beneficial owner is a UAE-based businessman with a 22% indirect interest. Accounts filed at Companies House are abridged and unaudited; declared turnover is EUR 310m but the last filed accounts show EUR 180m. Expected flows are EUR 40m per month, largely to Turkey, the UAE and Hong Kong, with one supplier in a FATF grey-listed jurisdiction. No local staff or premises have been evidenced. The client needs to draw in three weeks to fund a tender, and the RM warns that a competitor will take the relationship.
1. What are the red flags in this file and what enhanced due diligence must be completed before any credit decision?
Read the worked answer
Identify the red flags systematically
- Ownership opacity: a nominee shareholder in a BVI company sits above a Cyprus company and a Jersey trust. Nominee arrangements are designed to obscure who really controls the entity, and the 22% figure may understate control if the trust or nominee acts on someone's instruction.
- Geography and trade profile: metals trading to Turkey, the UAE and Hong Kong with a grey-listed supplier is a classic trade-based money laundering pattern, where value is moved through mispriced or fictitious shipments.
- Financial inconsistency: declared turnover of EUR 310m against filed accounts of EUR 180m is a 72% gap, and abridged unaudited accounts give no comfort on the trading history or the balance sheet.
- Substance: a sole director in Dubai, no evidenced staff or premises in England, and a three-week deadline to fund a tender. Urgency plus no substance plus complex ownership is a high-risk combination.
Enhanced due diligence to complete
- Full ownership and control chart, with certified constitutional documents, shareholder registers, the trust deed and any nominee agreement. Identify the settlor, trustees, protectors and beneficiaries of the trust, and test whether any of them is a PEP or has adverse media.
- Establish the actual UBO on a control basis, not just the 25% threshold. If the trust or a nominee can direct the company, the person behind it is the UBO regardless of percentage.
- Source of wealth and source of funds for the shareholders, and source of the trading capital; obtain audited financial statements or, if unavailable, bank references and management accounts supported by shipping and customs records.
- Verify the trading model: named counterparties, contracts, bills of lading, warehouse receipts, inspection certificates, insurance and logistics providers. Confirm that the expected EUR 40m monthly flow is consistent with real trade volumes and unit prices.
- Screen all directors, shareholders, beneficiaries and counterparties against sanctions and PEP lists, including the grey-listed supplier, and run adverse media in English and Arabic.
- Site visit or video walkthrough of premises, and independent verification of the director's identity and role.
Conclusion
- The file cannot be approved on the current information. The deadline is the client's problem, not a reason to shorten controls. Document every gap and the reason for the decision, because the regulator will ask.
2. Assuming the due diligence can be satisfactorily completed, how would you structure onboarding to control the risk, and what would make you decline?
Read the worked answer
Structure before amount
- Start with a small, transactional facility rather than a EUR 25m revolver. A EUR 5m documentary trade line, secured by the underlying goods and with a cash margin for each letter of credit, tests the client's behaviour and the quality of its documents without exposing the bank to a large unsecured loss.
- Make every payment channel visible to the bank: no third-party payments, no payments to or from the grey-listed jurisdiction, named counterparties pre-approved, and documentary evidence for each shipment before funds are released.
- Require full material adverse change and transaction-refusal rights, and the right to suspend drawings immediately pending review.
- Set a 90-day review with defined exit triggers: any unexplained payment, any attempt to route around the controls, any failure to provide shipping documents, any change in ownership.
Pricing and security
- Price for the risk: higher margin, arrangement fee, collateral or cash cover, and personal or corporate guarantees where available. Do not let relationship pricing override financial crime risk.
- Confirm sanctions exposure for each corridor and each counterparty, including vessels and insurers, because metals trades frequently involve sanctioned logistics.
What would make you decline
- Failure to identify the trust beneficiaries to the bank's satisfaction, or a refusal to provide the trust deed and nominee agreement.
- A UBO who is a PEP without senior management and compliance sign-off, or any sanctions nexus.
- Inability to reconcile the EUR 310m declared turnover with credible evidence, or a trading model that only makes sense as a value-transfer vehicle.
- Pressure to bypass controls, which is itself a red flag about how the relationship would behave after onboarding.
Decision
- Onboard only if the beneficial ownership is transparent and the trade documentation is real. Otherwise decline and file the rationale. Losing a EUR 25m facility is cheaper than a money laundering finding, account closure by the correspondent bank and a regulatory fine.
3. The RM escalates the delay to the head of corporate banking and warns that the client will walk. How do you handle the escalation and what do you tell the client?
Read the worked answer
Separate commercial pressure from the control decision
- The RM's warning is a commercial input, not a control waiver. Write the file note so that it is clear the escalation concerned timing and relationship value, not a request to lower standards. If the head of corporate banking asks for acceleration, offer to accelerate the work, not to skip it.
- Set out what is missing in a short, factual summary: ownership chain, trust and nominee documents, source of wealth, audited accounts and counterparty evidence. Give a realistic timeline for completion, for example 10-15 working days if the client provides everything promptly.
- Escalate the financial crime risk through the MLRO or financial crime committee in parallel, so the decision is joint rather than a trade-off between compliance and sales.
What you say to the client
- Be factual and non-accusatory: the bank requires standard due diligence for a facility of this size and cannot proceed until documents are received. Do not explain which specific red flag prompted the request, and do not hint that a suspicious activity report is being considered, because tipping off is a criminal offence in many jurisdictions.
- Offer a practical route: start with a smaller trade facility so the tender can be supported while full diligence completes, but only after ownership and source of wealth are verified.
Record keeping
- Document the escalation, the reasons for the timing, the decision and the approver. If the bank later faces a regulatory review, a clear record that the delay was risk-based is the best defence.
- Review the RM's incentives with the business head: if the pipeline rewards volume without regard to onboarding quality, the same problem recurs next month.
Possible outcome
- If the client withdraws rather than provide the trust documents and source of wealth evidence, that is itself the answer. The correct conclusion is that the bank avoided a relationship it could not safely manage.