An arbitral award is a paper right. Turning it into recovered value requires knowing where the assets actually are – and in Panama, that means working through corporate registers, banking secrecy, and nominee structures before enforcement tools can bite.
In this matter, a claimant holding a final arbitral award discovered that the respondent had routed proceeds through a layered Panamanian corporate structure before and after the award was issued. We reconstructed the payment trail from partial banking records, identified where value had settled, and coordinated enforcement with local counsel in Panama – ultimately reaching assets that the respondent had placed into nominee-held accounts within a private foundation.
The sections below describe the situation, the strategy we applied, the process that followed, and the lessons transferable to similar mandates.
Situation: an award without a visible target
The claimant – a mid-market trading business based in Western Europe – had obtained a final award against a counterparty following a commercial dispute. The counterparty was a Panamanian-incorporated entity. Its directors were nominees. Its ultimate beneficial owner had not appeared in the arbitration.
By the time the award was issued, the respondent's known bank accounts held little of substance. A payment trail existed in fragments: wire confirmations, a set of correspondent-bank records, and one partially disclosed statement from a receiving institution. That was it. The paper trail, on its face, looked dead.
Was there anything left to chase? That was the first question. The honest answer – as we explain in our financial forensics practice overview – is that incomplete records are not the same as no trail. They are a starting point, not a ceiling.
Why Panama? The structural challenge
Panama permits the use of private foundations and bearer-share-equivalent nominee structures that separate the visible owner of an asset from its true beneficiary. That separation is not, in itself, improper. In an enforcement context, however, it creates a deliberate gap between the award debtor and the assets a claimant needs to reach.
In our experience, this is one of the most common patterns in cross-border enforcement: the debtor entity holds nothing, but the beneficial owner – through a foundation or a second-tier corporate layer – holds everything. The enforcement question is whether that arrangement can be unwound, either by demonstrating that the foundation is a sham or by applying pressure at the choke points where assets must eventually flow into the visible financial system.
Panama also sits at a particular juncture for enforcement. Recognition of foreign arbitral awards under the New York Convention is available, but local procedure governs how and where an application is filed, and that process requires admitted local counsel. We coordinated closely with local counsel in Panama throughout this matter; they acted on the ground while we led the tracing and strategy work.
Strategy: follow the value, not the entity
When the debtor entity is hollow, the temptation is to focus enforcement efforts on that entity. That is usually the wrong strategy.
We shifted focus to the payment trail and to beneficial ownership. The core instruments were: a sham-trust analysis to test whether the foundation had any genuine independence from the beneficial owner; a follow-the-money reconstruction using the partial records already in hand; and a targeted disclosure process aimed at correspondent banks that had handled the relevant transfers.
The Bankers Trust order – compelling a bank to disclose account information in support of tracing – was used in the claimant's home jurisdiction to extract records from the correspondent leg of the transfers. Those records identified two onward destinations: one in a Central American jurisdiction, one within a Panamanian private foundation account.
A proprietary injunction was sought to preserve assets pending enforcement, on the basis that the funds in the foundation account could be shown to be proceeds of the underlying obligation. That injunction was granted on an without-notice basis – without notice to the respondent, to avoid tipping off the beneficial owner before the application was heard.
For more on how Panama-based assets are traced and reached, see our Panama jurisdiction overview.
Process: reconstructing the trail from partial records
What did reconstruction actually look like? We begin where the records end, not where they begin.
The wire confirmations showed value leaving a European bank toward a Panamanian correspondent. The correspondent-bank records – obtained via the disclosure process described above – showed the same value arriving at an intermediate account and then splitting into two transfers on the same day. One transfer went to a named Panamanian foundation. The other went offshore.
We used UBO register inquiries, nominee-director databases, and open-source corporate filings to link the foundation to the known beneficial owner. That linkage was not direct: it ran through a second nominee layer. But the pattern of control – same registered agent, same incorporation date cluster, same underlying signatory on correspondence – was sufficient to mount the sham-trust analysis.
In our experience, this kind of reconstruction takes weeks, not months, when the partial records are properly organised from the outset. The claimant in this matter had preserved all available documentation at the time of the loss. That preservation made the difference between a traceable trail and a gap too wide to bridge.
We regularly advise clients in early-stage matters to treat document preservation as the single most important immediate action – well before enforcement strategy is finalised. That theme is developed in our guide on source-of-funds investigations, which covers similar evidentiary principles in a different regional context.
Outcome and transferable lessons
Assets within the Panamanian private foundation were frozen pending enforcement. Local counsel in Panama filed for recognition of the award and, in parallel, applied for a charging order over the foundation's assets. A negotiated settlement followed – the beneficial owner, facing the prospect of a contested enforcement hearing and the sham-trust analysis becoming public, agreed to a structured payment that resolved the award.
No outcome in a matter like this is guaranteed. This one resolved because three conditions were met: the partial records were sufficient to establish the payment trail to the foundation; the sham-trust analysis held up under scrutiny; and the beneficial owner had a reputational reason to settle rather than litigate the foundation's independence.
The lessons that carry across to similar mandates:
- A hollow debtor entity is not the end of the analysis. Ask where the beneficial owner holds value, not where the judgment debtor holds it.
- Partial records can support a full reconstruction if they are preserved, organised, and analysed before the trail cools.
- In Panama – as in other coordinate jurisdictions – enforcement under the New York Convention is available but requires local counsel to act on the ground. Strategy and tracing can be led centrally; filing cannot.
- Interim relief is worth seeking early. A proprietary injunction, obtained without notice, freezes the position before the beneficial owner can react.
- Sham-trust analysis is a legitimate and often under-used tool. Where a foundation or trust has no genuine independence from the debtor, the assets inside it may be reachable.
If you hold an award and the debtor's assets are not where they appear to be, the question is not whether the trail exists – it is whether it has been followed far enough. For a confidential read on whether your enforcement position is viable, contact info@axiomtracel.com.
About Axiom Trace
Axiom Trace is an independent boutique focused on cross-border and crypto asset recovery. We trace assets that have moved across borders or on-chain and coordinate their freezing and recovery – working with defrauded principals, insolvency practitioners, and the lawyers and funders who refer them. We work lawfully and within applicable sanctions regimes, alongside local counsel where proceedings must be filed. We reconstruct payment trails from partial records and identify where value settled, including through nominee and foundation structures designed to obscure beneficial ownership. Our work has supported enforcement across multiple jurisdictions where the visible debtor holds nothing and the real assets are several layers removed. To discuss a matter, contact info@axiomtracel.com.
Disclaimer: This publication is for general information only and is not legal advice, nor a promise or prediction of recovery. No outcome is guaranteed. Asset recovery depends on the specific facts and on the law and procedure of each relevant jurisdiction, where local admitted counsel must act. Axiom Trace coordinates closely with admitted local counsel in Panama; local procedure governs the filing. Axiom Trace assumes no liability for actions taken or not taken based on this material. For advice on your situation, contact info@axiomtracel.com.
Recovering cross-border or crypto assets?
Confidential first review. We map tracing and recovery options.
Request a case review