This site uses cookies to provide you with a more responsive and personalized service. By using this site you agree to our use of cookies. You can learn more about our use of cookies and similar technologies and your choices by reviewing our Privacy Policy. By clicking “I agree” you agree to our use of cookies and similar technologies.
How Do You Investigate Intellectual Property Theft Across More Than 15 Countries Worldwide?
A company that sells its proprietary products through brokers and resellers abroad may be placing trust in people it rarely sees in markets where its visibility is limited. Controls that work well at headquarters tend to thin out once product moves into distribution. A hotline report or an internal audit finding may be the first sign that something has gone wrong, and often the first sign is only a thread.
A recent Guidepost client, whose supply chain crossed many countries, was in that position. An anonymous hotline report alleged brokers had been selling the company’s intellectual property (IP) for years outside authorized channels for discounted rates greater than were authorized. This one report raised questions: how accurate the claim was, was the IP theft an isolated incident, was it indicative of a systemic issue, and how could it remain undetected for so long.
Investigating IP theft across more than 15 countries is complicated, but not insurmountable. The key directive is following the known to the unknown, all while maintaining discretion so as to not alert potential adversaries in the supply chain, or even within the organization itself.
Global Investigative Due Diligence Begins with Knowing the Players
An important question to ask in IP theft investigations is: who stands to benefit? There is a tendency to only consider external parties, but the insider threat can never be dismissed. For example, a sales team bonus structure that is purely volume driven may incentivize reps to utilize local partners with questionable backgrounds or ethics. This does not mean that insiders always coordinate with third parties, but actions insiders take for self-enrichment may create opportunities for others to capitalize upon.
Our team began with an internal review of the due diligence process: what information is required before a reseller or broker is onboarded? In this instance, though a comprehensive application form was required, there was not any independent verification that the information submitted was accurate. On-site audits of certain high-risk brokers revealed that their reported physical addresses were non-existent, or the addresses were real, but occupied by wholly unrelated entities. Additional research of submitted applications uncovered certain similarities in names and registration paperwork. Reviews of in-country records and discreet interviews ultimately revealed organized crime was utilizing falsified passports of real individuals to mask their true identity. In other instances, though the reseller was a legitimate entity, the country’s depressed economic state resulted in resellers getting wrapped up in the scheme through bribes or threats of violence. Because the “bad guys” in certain jurisdictions were low-level civil authorities, that changed the investigative approach and desired outcome.
Multijurisdictional Coordination Is a Legal Problem and a Logistics Problem
The investigation for this particular matter spanned more than 15 countries, each with its own rules on evidence, privacy, informants, and legal recourse available to victims. Multijurisdictional coordination meant our team had to understand those rules before acting, sequence work so that activity in one country did not compromise another, and keep findings defensible for any court or regulator that could review them.
Law enforcement was part of that picture. Our team worked with police in several countries, including Korea, India, Thailand, and Egypt, and knowing when and how to bring local authorities into a matter is a judgment call that depends on the country, the facts, and the risk to sources. It is not uncommon for some organizations to forego law enforcement involvement or pressing their issues in the courts because of reputational damage to the brand. Enforcement attention to IP crime is rising in these markets. Korea’s Ministry of Intellectual Property reported 470 infringement cases in the first half of 2026, up 21 percent year over year, and referred 347 people to prosecutors. Authorities are active, and a company that comes to them with organized, verified findings is better positioned than one that arrives with suspicion alone.
Cross-Cultural Witness Interviews Require More Than Translation
Our investigators needed to be fluent in multiple languages, typically the local language, the language the network itself used, and English. The languages involved included Mandarin, Cantonese, Arabic, and Korean. That fluency matters most in cross-cultural witness interviews and in managing confidential informants. We have seen that people speak differently to an investigator who understands the dialect, the idiom, and the pressures that sit behind a careful answer. Cross-cultural witness interviews also require judgment about what a person can safely say and what a source may be risking by speaking at all.
Questions Worth Asking About Your Own Distribution Channels
Our experience across matters like this one suggests a handful of questions that leadership teams can ask now:
- What is the level of independent verification you require for each broker and reseller that handles your intellectual property, and how frequently do you re-verify that information?
- Do you offer an anonymous reporting hotline for tips and have a team that can review and respond to those reports?
- How often do you conduct on-site audits in high-risk jurisdictions, and do your contracts allow for you to conduct these audits unannounced?
- What internal processes, such as sales quotas, may be creating vulnerabilities or incentives that could be exploited?
- Do you have access to investigators who can work in the local language and culture?
Why an Independent Partner Matters
Most companies do not keep this capability in-house due to budgetary constraints, lack of a perceived need, or due to the absence of a formalized security/audit function within the overall corporate structure. Understandably, conducting cross-jurisdictional work in difficult locations with closed cultures is specialized work. More so is having the right local contacts with law enforcement to effectuate a desired outcome.
In more high-profile matters, independence also carries weight. General counsel, boards, and executives each want findings that are credible and that hold up under scrutiny, and findings from an outside team that has no stake in the outcome meet that standard more readily than internal assessments alone.
An anonymous hotline report is a force-multiplier for internal security teams. Engaging a third-party investigative partner early means someone with the right language skills, legal understanding, and field experience is already in place when questions arise. If your company sells through brokers abroad, the Guidepost team can help you assess where your exposure sits and navigate it.
MSU Institutional Assessment + RAMAGELLAN MonitorshipEmpire/Liberty Review