8th October 2019

Iran Sanctions

China Sanctions


The US Government is continuing its efforts to isolate Iran.

Last week, some more “high-profile” Chinese shipping companies were added to the list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDNs). The sanctioned parties include subsidiaries and their executives of COSCO Shipping Corporation Ltd 中国远洋海运集团有限公司.

  • COSCO Shipping Tanker (Dalian) Co 大连中远海运油品运输有限公司
  • COSCO Shipping Tanker (Dalian) Seaman & Ship Management Co Limited大连中远海运油运船员船舶管理有 限公司
  • China Concord Petroleum Co 中和石油有限公司,
  • Pegasus 88 Limited 飞马88有限公司,
  • Kunlun Shipping Company Ltd昆仑航运有限公司,
  • Kunlun Holding Company Ltd 昆仑控股有限公司

Companies need to be aware of these SDNs, as well as with subsidiaries that are owned 50% or more by them. Of course, these subsidiaries are not listed by the US Government, leaving the onus on you to do you own due diligence.

LSR finds out who owns and directs your Chinese business counterparts. We will get the information from verifiable and reliable government sources to add to your audit trail.

Each company search will give you:

  • Company Representative
  • Directors
  • Shareholders
  • Share Capital
  • Official documentary document as evidence

Fixed Price: US$ 85 per company

Delivery: 24 Hours

Insurers and Compliance officers trust us. We unearth commercial information and provide advice on low-profile companies in Asia and the Middle East. LSR listens to the details, understands what you need and gets you results – so that you can sleep at night.


26th September 2019

Panama Papers – how do you get your hands on the information in the future?

Off-Shore jurisdictions

In 2015, the so-called “Panama Papers” caused uproar and panic in some quarters including politicians and celebrities. The 11.5 million leaked documents had been taken from the Panamanian Law firm Mossack Fonseca which, for over 40 years, had been assisting clients in incorporating and administering companies in offshore jurisdictions.

Notwithstanding the rights and wrongs of the existence of tax-haven / offshore registries such as the British Virgin Islands (which actually accounted for over half of the 215,000 companies named), Liberia, the Marshall Islands and Panama itself, the sheer volume of companies incorporated was impressive.

 So, apart from relying on a leak of internal documents, is there any way of finding out anything about such companies? It is correct that there is a high degree of anonymity provided, but there’s no reason to think of it as a dead-end. As an example, let’s look at Panama itself:

A Panamanian company registry search will give you:

  • Board members – these can be nominees of the law firm that assisted in incorporating the company but often “real” people, associated with the beneficial owner, are named.
  • The location of the office where Board meetings are held – can be the local law firm again but, often the address of the beneficial owner behind the company.
  • Director searches – a useful tool to identify if individuals or companies are Directors of any other Panamanian companies.
  • Charge documents relating to assets owned by the company – ships for example.


LSR Services has been involved in successful ALTER EGO cases as a result of board members being traced back to the Beneficial Owners and charge/mortgage documents assisting with the arrest of assets worldwide.

In the coming weeks we will list other similar offshore registry searches and what you can expect from them, including other jurisdictions that many consider impenetrable – like China. Click Here to subscribe. Keep a look out for our future postings over the coming weeks.

15th August 2019

Law Firm Mergers – What’s in it for the lawyers?

Law firm Mergers

Law firm mergers – what’s in it for the lawyers?

There are two main reasons, at opposite ends of the spectrum – a desire to grow and a desire to stay afloat. In between there are a whole raft of reasons, as each law firm has its own corporate strategy and vision of the future. A major item on the agenda should also be the compatibility of the two corporate cultures.

Ideally, potential merger partners are looking to expand (in terms of services range and/or geography) but at the same time reducing the cost per head, through general economies of scale, technological integration and establishment and operating costs. Examples being;

  • The 2017 alliance of CMS (Insurance, Financial and Construction) with Nabarro (Real Estate) and Olswang (Media, Telecoms and Tech).
  • The recent merger of Penningtons Manches (UK based with 265 lawyers) with the maritime sector’s Thomas Cooper (offices in France, Spain, Greece, Singapore and Brazil with 26 partners).

Other reasons can include:

  • Succession Planning – Imagine a relatively small, but successful firm has seen the same, successful, senior partner group at the helm, but who are now all facing retirement at the same time with no discernable internal successors. A merger with another firm with management structures in place may be the easiest option to safeguard the welfare of their legacy, client base and loyal staff.
  • Client Satisfaction – Important clients who are embracing new offices abroad or entering new business sectors may require more local or enhanced range of services. Client loyalty only runs so deep and lawyers have to respond to demand.
  • Liferaft – A failing firm will grasp on to a merger as a means of staying afloat.
  • Consolidation – It’s often perceived to be better to represent a dominant force in one particular sector or geographic region, thereby becoming something of a magnet for new enquiries.

Of course, the mergers that actually occur are a fraction of those that are pursued, either casually or more seriously. After all, it has been said that every law firm has considered a merger at one time or other. The vast majority don’t progress past the initial overtures, either through incompatibility of perceived outcomes, different “cultures” and the occasional strong personality who actively sabotages the efforts.