Co-Investor Due Diligence: When You Invest with Other VCs
Venture and growth investments are usually not solo efforts. A lead investor defines the term sheet, a co-lead shares the biggest risks, follow-on investors and pro-rata participants fill out the round. In this setup, the strategic attention of the principals is focused almost entirely on the target: product, market, team, valuation. Co-investors — the partners on the same cap table — usually receive only a quick plausibility check: reputable fund, well-known name, no obvious problems.
That is no longer enough. Since the tightening of the European anti-money-laundering regime, the emergence of the EU sanctions framework with its rapid update cadence, and the growing sensitivity of ESG-relevant LPs, the question “who is actually sitting with us on the cap table?” has become structurally relevant. A co-investor with a problematic beneficial ownership structure or hidden PEP exposure does not just contaminate the investment — it contaminates all other cap-table participants as well.
For syndicate leads, growth-equity co-investors, strategic investors and family offices that regularly join VC syndicates, co-investor DD is therefore a standalone workstream — not a byproduct of target DD.
Why co-investor risks are weighted differently today
Three structural developments have shifted the weighting.
First: reputational contamination spreads faster and more broadly than before. If a co-investor in the round is publicly associated after closing with ESG issues or a sanctions-list connection, the entire syndicate is named in media coverage. Deal announcements are SEO-indexable, cap-table information is public. In effect, the reputational risk of a co-investor is a shared risk.
Second: compliance risks are operational. When the AMLR (EU Anti-Money-Laundering Regulation) fully takes effect in 2027, obliged entities — including banks, payment service providers and fund administrators — will have to run screenings on every co-investor. A sanctions match on a co-investor can mean that follow-on investments can no longer be processed because banks refuse to handle the payment. For the syndicate lead, that is an operational risk at the fund level.
Third: LPs increasingly require explicit co-investor due diligence. Institutional LPs — especially public pension funds, sovereign wealth funds with an ESG mandate and fund of funds — now anchor clauses in their side letters that set out screening requirements at cap-table level. Anyone who cannot meet this clause loses fundraising optionality over time.
UBO chain analysis: who is really behind the fund vehicle?
Fund structures are typically cascaded. A classic European VC vehicle consists of a GP entity, management company, adviser entity, one or more fund vehicles (often Luxembourg SCSp or Delaware LP) and behind them the LPs. The Ultimate Beneficial Owner chain is often four to six layers deep before a natural person becomes identifiable.
For robust co-investor DD, the UBO chain must be unraveled down to the level where decision-making power or control actually resides. The 5th Anti-Money Laundering Directive and the UBO registers of EU member states provide the legal infrastructure for this. In Germany, the Transparency Register has now, after a transition period, become a full register. In Austria, the register of beneficial owners works similarly, although access is sometimes more restrictive following the CJEU ruling on public access. In Switzerland, there is currently no comparable public register — there, you have to work via commercial register checks, share register reviews and targeted queries to the fund.
The critical question is not only “who is the UBO?”, but “who has control?” Control can result from voting rights, side letters, capital-call rights or contractual veto rights. A LP with a 5 percent capital stake can, if the side-letter structure is appropriate, exert more control in practice than a LP with 25 percent without special rights.
PEP exposure as an AMLR risk
Politically Exposed Persons in a co-investor’s circle are a structured risk factor under the AMLR from 2027 onward. The AMLR slightly broadens the PEP definition compared with the 6th Anti-Money Laundering Directive and obliges obliged entities to apply enhanced due diligence where PEPs are involved.
Practical point: a co-investor whose managing partner held a political mandate in an EU member state or a third country in the last 12 months triggers enhanced review obligations at the fund administration level. This is not a reason for exclusion — but it must be documented, and the documentation must be complete. If it is missing, a later review by BaFin, FINMA, FMA or the national AML supervisor can lead to an enforcement proceeding.
What syndicate leads typically do NOT share
In practice, the information flow between lead and co-investors is asymmetric. The lead has known the founder for months, has revised term-sheet drafts multiple times, and often negotiated a board seat. The follow-on investors receive a dense data package and little time. What is regularly not disclosed, although it is material:
Side letters of other co-investors: whether other investors received special preferential rights, expanded information rights or anti-dilution clauses is highly relevant to your own assessment — but it is typically not shared proactively.
Full cap-table history: which earlier investors sold secondary stakes, at what valuation, and whether any significant dilution events took place between rounds.
Lead-anchor relationship: whether the lead is personally close to the founder, whether there is overlap in the LP base, whether the founder or close family members sit in LP positions.
Prior history between co-investors: whether two co-investors already had disputes in a previous round, whether there are quiet agreements on exit timing.
This information asymmetry is not fully addressed in any legal framework. The only remedy is systematic self-conducted DD at co-investor level plus specific questions in the investment committee.
15-question checklist before term-sheet signing
The following 15 questions form the minimum that should be answered before term-sheet signing in a co-investment setting. Each question should be documented and backed by source references.
UBO identification: Who are the Ultimate Beneficial Owners of the co-investor vehicle at the natural-person level?
Control vs. capital: Do capital stakes and control rights align, or do special rights exist via side letter?
Fund jurisdiction: In which jurisdiction is the investing vehicle structurally anchored — and who is the administrator?
Sanctions list screen: Have the UBO, GP and managing partners been checked against EU sanctions, SECO, OFAC and UN lists?
PEP status: Are the UBO or managing partners PEPs, or close family members/close associates of PEPs within the meaning of the AMLR?
Adverse media: Are there adverse media reports on the UBO, fund or management team in the last five years?
LP base: Which LP types (public pension, SWF, HNWI, state-linked) are in the fund? Are sensitive jurisdictions (Russia, Iran, DPRK, Myanmar) represented in the LP base?
Regulatory status: Is the fund properly registered with the home-jurisdiction supervisor (BaFin, FINMA, FMA, CSSF, CySEC)?
Litigation history: Are there any ongoing legal disputes against the fund, GP or managing partners?
Portfolio conflicts: Does the fund hold positions in direct competitors of the target?
Prior relationships: Have there been co-investments in previous rounds? Were they conflict-free?
Exit philosophy: How aggressive is the co-investor’s exit orientation (holding period, IRR requirement)?
ESG framework: Does the co-investor have a documented ESG framework? What exclusion criteria does it apply?
Pro-rata behavior: Does the co-investor confirm pro-rata participation in follow-on rounds, or is participation conditional?
Information-rights overlap: What reporting rights does the co-investor claim that could conflict with your own rights?
Handling foreign co-investors
Co-investors outside the EU materially increase the review burden. Three constellations require particularly careful scrutiny.
With non-EU sovereigns — i.e. sovereign wealth funds from third countries — the UBO chain is effectively predetermined (the state), but the control level can be opaque. The key question is whether the SWF operates under the Santiago Principles and whether it invests in sanctioned sectors. For German acquirers, the Foreign Trade and Payments Ordinance (AWV) also comes into play: for critical targets (defense, dual use, critical infrastructure), an investment review under sections 55 ff. AWV must be assessed.
With Russia-related exposure — including indirect exposure through UBO cascades — a highly complex and regularly updated EU sanctions regime has applied since 2022. Indirect relationships via vehicles domiciled in third countries can also fall under circumvention provisions. The documentation requirement is extensive.
With China exposure, the main issue is not classic sanctions risk, but FDI screening and — for US co-investment cooperation — outbound investment screening under the US Executive Order on China investments in semiconductors, quantum and AI. A European lead with a Chinese co-investor in a deep-tech target can run into problems if the deal is to be registered in the US at the same time.
What applies in Switzerland, Austria and across the EU?
The regulatory requirements for co-investor DD differ between the German-speaking jurisdictions and the EU area.
Switzerland: SECO sanctions and AMLA
Switzerland is not an EU member, but it generally adopts EU sanctions through the SECO regime with a delay of a few days to weeks. For Swiss funds and co-investors, the GwG applies together with FINMA-specific circulars. Especially important: Swiss supervisory law knows the category of “financial intermediation not requiring authorization,” which creates a broader zone than the EU framework and is relevant when assessing the supervisory classification of a Swiss co-investor.
Austria: FMA and FM-GwG
In Austria, the FM-GwG (Financial Markets Anti-Money Laundering Act) applies alongside the EU requirements. The FMA is the competent supervisor. Especially sensitive: Austria has historically had a high share of CEE-linked fund structures, which in UBO analysis leads to deeper chains with CEE jurisdiction touchpoints. Here, the review should include not only Austrian registers, but also the relevant CEE commercial and UBO registers.
Across the EU: AMLR and the AML authority AMLA
The AMLR comes into force gradually, with full application from 2027. It harmonizes substantive requirements directly — unlike the previous anti-money-laundering directives, which required national implementation. At the same time, the EU is establishing the AMLA (Anti-Money-Laundering Authority) in Frankfurt for the first time as a central supervisor that will directly oversee cross-border financial actors. For large funds with EU presence in several member states, that means: one central supervisor, one review threshold, harmonized sanctions.
For banks that co-invest as LPs, Section 25h KWG also applies, with requirements for preventive measures against money laundering and other criminal offenses. When co-investing in VC syndicates, the bank must document that the co-investors were screened against the relevant lists — otherwise supervisory objections may follow.
How sanctions lists interact
Which list matters when? In European co-investor DD, several lists must be checked in parallel, with different levels of relevance:
List | Scope | Relevance for co-investor DD |
|---|---|---|
EU Consolidated List | Binding across the EU | Primary — every co-investor with an EU nexus must be checked against this list |
SECO list | Binding in Switzerland | For Swiss co-investors or Swiss fund administration |
OFAC SDN | Extraterritorial US reach | As soon as USD payments, US LPs or US banks are part of the setup |
UN Security Council | Globally binding through member states | Baseline screening, usually redundant with the EU list |
FATF High-Risk Jurisdictions | Policy recommendations | Relevant for jurisdictional risk of the fund structure, not for individuals |
UK OFSI | Binding in the UK | For UK co-investors or GBP payments |
As a rule, the review should run in parallel against at least EU, SECO (where there is a Swiss nexus), OFAC (where there is a USD nexus) and UN. A purely EU screen does not cover a globally networked round.
Concrete workflow: three phases
A practical co-investor DD process is divided into three phases with different levels of depth.
Pre-term-sheet screen (2 hours): Basic screening of all known co-investors against sanctions lists, PEP databases and adverse media. Goal: identify obvious red flags before time is spent on the term sheet.
Pre-closing deep dive (3 to 5 working days): UBO chain analysis down to the natural person, regulatory classification of the fund, multilingual adverse-media research, LP base review where possible, documentation for the AML officer.
Ongoing monitoring (continuous): List changes in sanctions databases are automatically matched against existing cap-table positions. If there is a match, an alert is sent to compliance and the deal lead. Monthly summary in the portfolio review.
The separation matters: pre-term-sheet is rough and fast, pre-closing is systematic and documented, monitoring is continuous and automated. Anyone who mixes these three phases up will overinvest before the term sheet or underinvest before closing.
Escalation logic when red flags appear
If the DD identifies issues, a clear escalation sequence applies. First: direct discussion with the co-investor. The finding is presented, an opportunity to respond is given, and context is requested. Many issues are resolved through direct clarification. Second: escalation to the LP advisory committee, if the finding is material and your own fund structure could be affected. Third: notification to your own compliance officer with full documentation. In the case of severe findings — for example a sanctions-list match — escalation is immediate; for less severe findings, it happens in the next regular report.
Clear documentation discipline is the core: every finding, every statement, every decision is recorded in writing. In later regulatory reviews, this chain is the proof that due care was exercised.
How platform solutions make co-investor DD scalable
The operational bottleneck in co-investor DD is parallelism. A typical late-stage round has ten to fifteen investors on the cap table. Every co-investor requires UBO resolution, sanctions screening, PEP checks and adverse-media checks. Done manually, this ties up several analyst workdays per round — often exactly when term-sheet negotiations are underway.
Indicium addresses this bottleneck through bulk-upload workflows: up to ten co-investor vehicles with their respective beneficial owners can be uploaded in parallel and screened against EU sanctions, SECO, OFAC, UN, PEP databases and adverse-media sources. The results are documented in GDPR-compliant form, with sources and date, and can be filed directly as AML-officer compliance documentation. For ongoing monitoring, the cap-table entities remain in the system, and list changes trigger automatic alerts.
For syndicate leads who regularly curate rounds, this changes the arithmetic: co-investor DD is no longer a question of capacity in the compliance team, but a question of consistent process enforcement. That is the structural difference between a professional and an improvised approach to cap-table risk.
If you want to set up a systematic co-investor DD process for your next round that is AMLR-ready and keeps your LPs satisfied, talk to us. Book a demo and we will show you what a bulk screen looks like for your typical round setup.
Read more — related articles
Nabil El Berr
