Case studies

Six sample engagements, end to end

How the process behaves when the news is good, when it is bad, and when it is usefully complicated.

Illustrative scenario — not a real client case

These scenarios are constructed to show how engagements unfold and how findings are reported. They describe no real client, supplier or transaction. Real anonymized cases will replace them as clients grant permission.

Scenario A · Illustrative scenario — not a real client case

The verification that cleared the path

Buyer: European DTC brand, first order of silicone kitchenware
Decision stage: Quotation received; deposit not yet requested
Information provided: Storefront link, quotation, claimed factory city

Findings:

Storefront trading name resolved cleanly to a registered manufacturer, active nine years, manufacturing scope, industrial-park address.
Website, email domain and quotation entity all consistent with the registry.
One minor gap: the quotation omitted an inspection stage.

What remained unresolved: Production capacity and quality systems were outside documentary scope and were not assessed.

What the buyer did: The buyer proceeded, adding a pre-shipment inspection clause to the PI before paying the deposit. Visible risk was rated low; the report said plainly that this was not a guarantee of performance.

Scenario B · Illustrative scenario — not a real client case

The beneficiary that led nowhere

Buyer: North American Amazon seller, private-label LED lighting
Decision stage: PI in hand, deposit requested within 48 hours
Information provided: Storefront link, PI, payment instructions

Findings:

The storefront resolved to a registered mainland company in good standing.
The PI seller matched the registry. The bank beneficiary did not — a Hong Kong entity with no visible relationship to the seller in either register.
Supplier response to the mismatch question was a screenshot asserting the relationship, with no verifiable document.

What remained unresolved: Whether the Hong Kong entity was a legitimate related party could not be established from available records or the supplier’s answers.

What the buyer did: The report rated visible risk elevated and framed one condition: a documented link between the entities, or payment to the seller’s own account. The supplier declined both. The buyer chose a different supplier. Whether the original arrangement was fraudulent is unknown — the report claimed only what the evidence showed: the payment chain could not be verified.

Scenario C · Illustrative scenario — not a real client case

The visit that changed the terms, not the supplier

Buyer: Australian hardware startup, aluminium enclosure with tooling
Decision stage: Supplier shortlisted; tooling deposit pending
Information provided: Company details, PI including tooling charges, claimed factory address

Findings:

Registry and documents were consistent; the company checked out as a manufacturer.
The live visit reached a real, running CNC shop at the stated address — smaller than implied, with anodising confirmed on camera as subcontracted, which had not been previously stated.
The tooling storage question was answered on camera: moulds stored on site, ownership “negotiable”.

What remained unresolved: The subcontractor’s identity and quality arrangements were not visible; anodising quality could not be assessed remotely.

What the buyer did: The buyer stayed with the supplier but renegotiated: tooling ownership written into the PI, the anodising subcontractor named, and an inspection stage added before balance payment. The visit’s value was not a verdict — it was accurate expectations and two contract clauses.

Scenario D · Illustrative scenario — not a real client case

The bank details that changed after the deposit was agreed

Buyer: UK importer, second order of packaging machinery parts
Decision stage: Deposit agreed; revised bank details received by email the same week
Information provided: Prior PI, the original and revised payment instructions, supplier email thread

Findings:

The original beneficiary matched the registered seller from the first order.
The revised instructions, arriving in a same-thread email, named a different account and a new beneficiary; the email headers and writing style differed subtly from earlier messages.
The supplier’s known phone contact, reached separately, was unaware any change had been requested.

What remained unresolved: Whether the supplier’s email account was compromised, or the request was internal, could not be confirmed from outside. We report the discrepancy, not its cause.

What the buyer did: The report flagged the change as high visible risk and recommended verifying any new bank details through a previously trusted channel before paying. The buyer paid the original account after direct confirmation. No claim is made that fraud was “prevented” — only that an unverified change was not acted on.

Scenario E · Illustrative scenario — not a real client case

The report that returned “insufficient information”

Buyer: US first-time importer, custom textiles
Decision stage: Early — supplier found on a marketplace, no PI yet
Information provided: A storefront link and an English trading name only

Findings:

The trading name did not resolve cleanly to a single registered entity; two candidates existed with similar names in different provinces.
The storefront listed no unified social credit code, and the contact would not provide the registered Chinese name when asked.
Without the registered entity, identity, address and status checks could not be anchored to a specific company.

What remained unresolved: Almost everything. The review could not establish which legal entity stood behind the storefront.

What the buyer did: Rather than guess, the report returned “insufficient information” and listed exactly what to obtain — the registered Chinese name and the social credit code — to make a verification possible. A refusal to provide the registered name was itself noted as a signal. The fee covered the work done; the buyer paused until the basics were supplied.

Scenario F · Illustrative scenario — not a real client case

The trading company that was the right choice

Buyer: Canadian retailer, mixed homeware assortment
Decision stage: Comparing two suppliers before a first consolidated order
Information provided: Two storefronts, both quotations, one claimed “factory direct”

Findings:

The supplier claiming “factory direct” resolved to a trading company, not a manufacturer — its scope and address indicated wholesale, not production.
The trading company was registered, active and long-established, with consistent identity across its materials.
For a mixed assortment sourced from many small factories, a competent trader consolidating the order was a reasonable fit — the problem was the inaccurate “factory” claim, not the trader model itself.

What remained unresolved: The underlying factories were not identified or assessed; the trader’s quality control over them was outside documentary scope.

What the buyer did: The report corrected the “factory” claim, rated visible risk moderate on the inconsistency, and set out what to ask a trading intermediary about inspection and accountability. The buyer proceeded with the trader knowingly — a trading company is not automatically the wrong choice, provided you know that is what you are paying.

The services behind these scenarios: Supplier Verification, Pre-Deposit Risk Review and the Live Factory Visit.

Scope and disclaimer

FactoryPass China provides practical business verification, document review, supplier risk screening, and fieldwork coordination based on information available at the time of review.

Our services do not constitute legal advice, financial advice, certification, a formal factory audit, a product inspection, laboratory testing, or a guarantee of supplier performance, product quality, delivery, regulatory compliance, or future conduct.

Customers remain responsible for final supplier selection, contracts, payment decisions, product compliance, professional inspection, customs clearance, and import requirements.

Fixed buyer-paid fees only. We take no commissions or kickbacks from the supplier being reviewed. Read more about how we stay independent or how we reach a finding.

About to send a deposit?

Send the supplier name, profile link, quotation or PI. We will recommend the right verification step and reply by email within 24 hours. No call required.

Check a Supplier Book a Live Factory Visit

Fixed buyer-paid fees only. We take no commissions or kickbacks from the supplier being reviewed.