Anchor the subject
Resolve the exact company, identifiers and jurisdiction before expanding the case.
Canonical target entity
Follow ownership from one legal entity to the wider corporate footprint.
Move from a target company to shareholders, intermediate entities, ultimate owners and supported corporate connections—while preserving the source and match rationale behind every line of inquiry.
For investigations teams, forensic accountants, disputes practices and analysts building defensible corporate maps.
Corporate investigation recordEvidence assembled
SubjectMeridian Trade S.R.L.
ResolvedThree-layer chain mapped
Decision questionWhich companies and people are demonstrably connected—and which are only leads?
Government registry dataMoldovan shareholder record and two foreign corporate owners
Source factVerified public-source evidenceCourt filing confirms a historical company connection
Separate evidenceZavia calculation45% indirect interest supported through the principal holding path
Formula shownUnresolved or conflictingA same-name property owner cannot be identity-matched from available records
ReviewWorkflow outcomeCorporate link supported; property record retained as an unconfirmed lead
One evidence model throughoutExact legal entityNamed source and dateVisible ownership pathExplicit evidence gaps
The operating problem
A useful investigation separates evidence from inference.
Names repeat, groups cross borders and public claims conflict. Zavia keeps confirmed registry relationships, verified public evidence, calculations and possible matches in different states.
Decision to support
Which companies and people are demonstrably connected—and which are only leads?
01
Who owns the target directly and through intermediate companies?
02
Where else do relevant owners or controlling entities appear in supported company records?
03
Which potential asset links are evidenced, and which remain investigative leads?
How the workflow fits
Move from submitted company to reviewable evidence.
Zavia provides the company and ownership layer. Your team keeps control of policy, judgment and the final decision.
Traverse ownership
Follow corporate shareholders upward and group relationships outward.
Source-linked investigation graph
Test each connection
Keep confirmed, possible, historical and conflicting matches visibly separate.
Relationship rationale
Build the case record
Save relevant entities, paths, source dates, calculations and gaps together.
Exportable evidence file
What your team receives
A decision file—not a data dump.
Every output is built to be reviewed by a person, passed into a system and revisited when the underlying company changes.
Ownership map
Entity-by-entity paths from the target to companies and people behind it.
Connection register
Other supported company relationships with role, jurisdiction, date and match status.
Evidence ledger
Named sources and retrieval dates attached to the relationships they support.
Lead boundary
Potential asset or affiliation leads clearly distinguished from proven ownership.
Evidence architecture
Do not flatten four different evidence states into one answer.
The distinction is visible to analysts and available to systems through structured delivery.
Government registry data
The company fact or relationship as reported by the named official registry or government source.
Verified public-source evidence
A named public disclosure matched to the legal entity and kept separate from official registry facts.
Zavia calculation
A result derived from supported source facts, with the entity path and formula available to reproduce.
Unresolved or conflicting
A missing, unclear or inconsistent part of the record that the workflow must not convert into certainty.
The procurement test
What a skeptical buyer will challenge.
These are the controls that prevent a useful company-data workflow from becoming an overclaimed black box.
“A common name can create a false network.”
Name-only matches remain possible rather than confirmed. Available identifiers, jurisdictions, roles and dates explain why a record was or was not linked.
“Corporate ownership does not prove ownership of an asset.”
Correct. Zavia supports company-led asset-tracing leads. A property, vessel, account or other asset requires evidence from the relevant authoritative source.
“A polished graph can hide weak evidence.”
Every graph edge retains its relationship type, source state and date. Unresolved edges are not styled as established facts.
Use the same evidence everywhere
Web platform, API, MCP, bulk data and monitoring.
Agreed web, API, MCP, bulk-data and monitoring implementations are designed to preserve the same resolved entities, relationship paths, evidence types, available dates, calculations and unresolved states.
Compare access methodsStructured decision contextWhich companies and people are demonstrably connected—and which are only leads?
- entity
- resolved
- registry_evidence
- attached
- ownership_paths
- visible
- calculations
- reproducible
- unresolved
- explicit
Frequently asked questions
Scope, evidence and workflow boundaries.
Need to test a specific jurisdiction or policy? Talk to the Zavia team.
Use your own company cases
Test the evidence before you change the workflow.
Start with a legal entity your team already knows. Compare the sources, ownership path and unresolved gaps against your current process.