How to Verify Whether an Intermediary Really Represents a Brazilian Company

Translate “representative” into an observable act.

Ask the intermediary what they can do without further approval: introduce a buyer, discuss terms, issue a binding offer, sign a contract, appoint another broker or receive money. Record the answer in writing. “Direct mandate” and “seller’s side” are not precise descriptions of authority, and an introduction role should not be treated as inferior or suspicious simply because it is limited.

Obtain the individual’s name, the legal entity through which they act and the principal’s full legal name and identifier. Check the Brazilian principal through the official CNPJ route. Resolve group, subsidiary and establishment names before asking for confirmation: a response from the wrong affiliate may leave the claimed relationship unanswered.

Request the instrument behind the claimed power.

Ask for the relevant authorization or agreement, including the pages containing limitations and signatures. Record the principal, recipient, issuer, date, expiry, territory, product and permitted acts. If the intermediary relies on an onward delegation, request that link as well. A cropped cover page cannot establish the scope of the operative provisions.

Establish the signatory’s capacity at the relevant time through appropriate corporate acts or another supported authorization. The competent Junta Comercial can be a route to filed records for Brazilian companies within its remit. Current QSA data alone may not resolve historic authority or a requirement for joint signatures. Have counsel assess the instrument’s legal effect.

Design a confirmation that cannot answer the wrong question.

Agree whether contact with the principal is permitted before making it. A confidential review can be compromised by an unapproved call. Independently establish the company’s channel rather than using only the phone number in the mandate or an address forwarded by the intermediary. Record how the contact was found and the respondent’s role.

Send the exact entity, transaction reference and claimed act. Avoid “Is this person legitimate?”: a general positive response can be mistaken for approval of price, allocation and payment instructions. Ask the respondent to identify anything they cannot confirm. If they decline or do not respond, preserve that as a limitation rather than calling the claim false.

Read the response at its actual scope.

Keep the original response, date and sender details with your question. The wording matters: “we have worked together” says something different from “authorized to sign this agreement.” Seek clarification only on a material ambiguity; do not pressure a respondent to make a broader statement than they can support.

Use background checks to test context, not replace authority.

Compare the intermediary’s professional history, previous roles and public affiliations with what they claim now. Resolve common names and distinguish an individual’s experience from a newly formed company’s history. A past role at a producer can explain useful knowledge without establishing current representation.

References require the same discipline. Ask what the referee actually observed, when and for which entity. Several websites repeating a biography may share one origin. A limited public footprint is not proof of deception; an established profile is not a current mandate. Prioritize contradictions that affect the specific claimed power, rather than collecting unrelated personal information.

Write a relationship finding, not a character verdict.

Separate verified identity, documented professional history, corroborated introduction authority and unresolved contracting powers. Identify the missing source and the consequence for the proposed act. This allows the buyer or counsel to narrow the next request instead of asking for a vague “more complete background check.”

Track later changes. If a new company signs the offer, a sub-broker takes over negotiations or payment is redirected, ask which earlier confirmation still applies. An authority finding belongs to a principal, person, act and period; it should not travel automatically with an evolving commercial chain.