We tested the cargo story against the entire Houston vessel window — not against one document.
Selected evidence below is intentionally limited and anonymized. It shows how a transaction-level review moves from document claims to independent vessel identity and physical-voyage testing.
The submitted B/L described liquefied propane loaded at Port of Houston for Tianjin and stated a specific on-board date.
The voyage report stated “Flag State: Turkey” and provided a specific Houston departure and Tianjin arrival sequence.
Using the IMO rather than the vessel name allowed us to track the same physical ship across name and flag changes and compare it with the transaction documents.
Key contradiction: the flag claim did not survive the IMO cross-check.
The submitted voyage material identified the vessel as Turkish-flagged. Independent records tied to the submitted IMO instead showed a different flag history around the relevant voyage period, and the same persistent IMO later appeared under a different vessel name and flag.
Why this matters: vessel names and flags can change; the IMO number is the persistent identifier. Once the IMO was fixed, the transaction document's Turkey flag claim no longer matched the independent vessel identity history.
Selected rows from the Houston vessel screen
We did not search for a vessel that “looked right.” We built a broader candidate set and eliminated vessels by capacity, timing and destination.
| Candidate | Houston timing | Capacity / class | Post-Houston route | Assessment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Candidate A | within claimed loading window | VLGC-size capacity | U.S. Gulf → claimed China destination | Closest physical match |
| Candidate B | adjacent to claimed loading window | VLGC-size capacity | Different destination | Timing close; destination mismatch |
| Candidate C | overlapping claimed loading window | VLGC-size capacity | Different Asia destination | Still in Houston after claimed departure |
| Candidate D | after claimed loading point | VLGC-size capacity | China-bound, different port | Wrong timing / destination |
| Candidate E | after claimed loading point | VLGC-size capacity | Later China-bound | Arrived after claimed loading point |
We screened the relevant Houston window rather than assuming the vessel name provided in the POP was correct.
Smaller LPG carriers, late arrivals, early departures and incompatible destinations were excluded before deeper identity work.
The closest physical match was then tested through persistent IMO identity and independent vessel records, exposing the flag inconsistency.
Method note: public AIS and vessel databases can be delayed or retain different snapshots. We therefore do not treat any single database as conclusive; the value comes from reconciling multiple independent sources against the commercial documents and timeline.
