This is a sample report
Redacted and illustrative — the layout, scoring model, and sections are exactly what you’ll receive when you commission a DPI Property + Seller Verification Report on your own property.
Diaspora Property Intelligence
Confidential Verification Report
DPI-2026-00431
Issued 4/17/2026
Property + Seller
Verification Report
Before you wire money, this report tells you exactly what the property is, who is really selling it, and whether the evidence holds up.
Property
Plot 42, East Legon Extension
Location
Accra, Ghana
Prepared for
A. Owusu
Analyst
K. Asante
Overall Risk Score
Elevated
48
/ 100
SAFERRISKIER
Seller Trust
62
/ 100
Credible with caveats
John K. Mensah
DPI Recommendation
Proceed with Caution
Why: Identity mismatch between the signing vendor and the registered owner remains unresolved. A competing claimant has emerged who is not named on the title. The property and its boundaries are confirmed genuine and consistent — the structural basis of the deal is sound.
Confidential · Prepared exclusively for the named buyerEvidence cutoff: 4/15/2026
02
Section 02
Property Snapshot
What exactly is being sold
Property
Plot 42, East Legon Extension
Location
Accra, Ghana
Type
4-bedroom detached
Size
~320 m² on 0.25 acres
Asking Price
GHS 3,200,000
Coordinates
5.6345, -0.1543
Listing source
https://example.com/listings/plot-42-east-legonWhat the buyer asked DPI to verify
Confirm ownership, seller identity, and that no competing claims exist before paying a 30% deposit.
Field notes: Property verified in person on 2026-04-12. Currently unoccupied, perimeter wall intact, main gate padlocked. Boundaries match the registry plan within tolerance.
03
Section 03
Risk Score Breakdown
How the headline number was built, category by category
Overall
48
out of 100
Elevated
How to read this
Property existence and boundaries are confirmed, but the sale agreement names a vendor whose ID does not exactly match the registered owner, and a second individual has emerged claiming to be a co-heir. Until both are resolved, the risk sits at the Elevated band.
LOW 0–19
MOD 20–39
ELEV 40–59
HIGH 60–79
SEV 80+
Title & ownership integrity
Weight 25
Registry clean; identity mismatch against signing vendor.
55/100
Seller identity & authority
Weight 20
Primary seller ID verified; middle-name discrepancy unresolved.
62/100
Physical property reality
Weight 15
Existence, boundaries, and condition all confirmed.
15/100
Encumbrances & disputes
Weight 15
Competing heirship claim from a second individual.
70/100
Document authenticity
Weight 15
PoA supplied is dated 2019 and references a different plot.
40/100
Behavioural / process signals
Weight 10
Seller tolerant of verification; no pressure tactics observed.
30/100
04
Section 04 · Red Flags
Red Flags (3)
Issues that must be resolved before any money moves.
High#01
Identity mismatch between signing vendor and registered owner
What we found: The sale agreement names "John A. Mensah" as vendor, but the land registry lists the registered owner as "John Kwame Mensah" with a different national ID number.
Why it matters: The person signing the sale agreement may not have authority to transfer title. Payment to this party risks loss of funds and inability to register the transfer.
Evidence: App. B-4 (sale agreement p.1) vs App. C-1 (registry extract, pulled 2026-04-10).
High#02
Competing claim from an undocumented heir
What we found: A second individual, Mr. S. Mensah, contacted the buyer independently on 2026-04-03 claiming to be a co-heir. Registry lists no co-owners.
Why it matters: An unresolved heirship claim can block registration post-payment, or surface in litigation.
Evidence: App. D-2 (Messenger transcript), App. E-1 (field notes).
Medium#03
Unwritten brokerage relationship
What we found: No signed brokerage agreement between the seller and the broker (E. Adjei) was produced.
Why it matters: Without written authority, any commission or payment instruction the broker issues is unenforceable.
Evidence: Buyer interview, 2026-04-08.
05
Section 05
Seller Check
Evidence review for John K. Mensah
Seller Trust Score
62
out of 100
Credible with caveats
Analyst narrative
Of the three individuals claiming authority to sell this property, John K. Mensah is the most credible. Identity and registry ownership align at the plot level, but a middle-name discrepancy between his ID ("John A. Mensah") and the registry ("John Kwame Mensah") prevents a higher score until reconciled.
Identity
w 25
Authority
w 30
Documents
w 20
Corroboration
w 15
Behaviour
w 10
06
Section 06
Seller Comparison
3 individuals claim authority to sell this property. DPI ranks them here.
| # | Seller | Trust |
|---|---|---|
#1 | John K. Mensah Introduced by buyer's cousin Owner | 62Credible with caveats |
#2 | E. Adjei Introduced by John K. Mensah Broker | 55Mixed / unresolved |
#3 | S. Mensah Unsolicited Messenger contact Co-heir | 18Not credible |
Most credible so far: John K. Mensah
Most credible of the three. Identity and registry align at the plot level; the unresolved "John A." vs "John Kwame" middle-name mismatch is the single blocker preventing a higher score.
07
Section 07
Documents Required Before Payment
Request these from the seller, in this order, before any deposit moves.
- 1Certified registry extract, ≤30 days oldFrom: John K. Mensah, direct from the Lands CommissionWhy: Confirms the current registered owner and any encumbrances as of today, not as of when the seller first approached the buyer.What good looks like: Official stamp, issue date within the last 30 days, owner name matching the seller's government ID exactly.
- 2Notarised name-reconciliation affidavitFrom: John K. MensahWhy: Reconciles "John A. Mensah" (on the sale agreement and ID) with "John Kwame Mensah" (on the registry).What good looks like: Sworn affidavit referencing both names, both ID numbers, and sealed by a commissioner of oaths.
- 3Written statement from S. MensahFrom: S. MensahWhy: Either documentary proof of his heirship claim, or an unambiguous written withdrawal.What good looks like: Signed statement naming the property, the claimant, and either attaching documentary evidence or confirming withdrawal.
- 4Signed brokerage agreementFrom: Between John K. Mensah and E. AdjeiWhy: Establishes the broker's authority to act on behalf of the seller and the terms of any commission.What good looks like: Written agreement, dated and signed by both parties, naming the property and the broker's scope.
- 5Recent utility or property-rate receiptFrom: John K. MensahWhy: Independent corroboration that the registered owner has possession and pays for the property.What good looks like: Receipt dated within the last 90 days, in the registered owner's name, for the correct plot address.
08
Section 08
Questions to Ask the Seller
Scripted, risk-tied questions. Copy and paste into WhatsApp, email, or your next call.
Q1
Your national ID shows the name "John A. Mensah" but the land registry shows "John Kwame Mensah". Can you send the document that reconciles these two names?
Probes: Identity mismatch risk
Honest answer looks like: Sends a name-reconciliation affidavit, a gazette notice, or an ID history showing both names.
Red flag answer looks like: Refuses, delays indefinitely, or claims it doesn't matter.
Q2
Please send a photo of your national ID next to today's date written on paper, and a short video of you standing at the property's main gate.
Probes: Identity and physical possession
Honest answer looks like: Sends both within a day without friction.
Red flag answer looks like: Refuses, sends only old photos, or sends a different property.
Q3
S. Mensah has contacted me claiming to be a co-heir of this property. Can you explain the family ownership and provide any document that addresses his claim?
Probes: Competing claimant
Honest answer looks like: Acknowledges and produces family documentation, or confirms the claim is false with evidence.
Red flag answer looks like: Becomes evasive, dismisses without evidence, or pressures the buyer to ignore it.
Q4
Please send me your signed brokerage agreement with the owner.
Probes: Broker authority
Honest answer looks like: Sends a written, signed brokerage agreement naming the plot.
Red flag answer looks like: Says no written agreement exists, or sends an unrelated document.
Q5
Which bank account will receive payment, and in whose name is it held?
Probes: Payment route and identity alignment
Honest answer looks like: Names an account in the registered owner's name, or a lawyer / conveyancer trust account.
Red flag answer looks like: Names an unrelated third-party account or insists on cash/crypto.
Section 09 · Final Recommendation
Proceed with Caution
Top drivers
- 1Identity mismatch between the signing vendor and the registered owner remains unresolved.
- 2A competing claimant has emerged who is not named on the title.
- 3The property and its boundaries are confirmed genuine and consistent — the structural basis of the deal is sound.
To move this recommendation up a tier
DPI needs: (a) a certified registry extract dated within 30 days confirming John K. Mensah as sole registered owner; (b) a supervised live ID check of the signing vendor; (c) a written, witnessed statement from S. Mensah either confirming or withdrawing his claim.
Analyst note
The physical property is real and matches what the buyer was told. The risk in this file is entirely administrative: a name reconciliation on the primary seller and a resolution of the competing heirship claim. Neither is a deal-breaker, but both must close before any deposit moves.
10
Section 10
Next Services Available
Follow-on services that close the specific gaps identified in this report.
Registry Re-pull
Fresh certified extract on the day of payment to close the 30-day freshness gap.
Seller Live Verification Call
DPI-supervised video call with on-camera ID check for John K. Mensah.
Document Authentication
Forensic check on the sale agreement and the name-reconciliation affidavit once produced.
On-Site Re-inspection
Second dated, geotagged site visit within 48 hours of payment.
Lawyer / Conveyancer Hand-off
Escrow-ready packaging of the findings for a vetted in-country conveyancer.
Analyst Second-Opinion Review
Senior reviewer re-runs the risk and trust scoring — recommended for Elevated and above.
Methodology: Land registry extract pulled 2026-04-10; physical site visit and two neighbour interviews 2026-04-12; digital footprint review 2026-04-13. Out of scope: tax arrears beyond registry notations; valuation; criminal record check.Prepared by K. Asante, reviewed by M. Boateng