Evidence standard

Kopa’s central allegation is that the overall operation was a sophisticated bank-guarantee scam. That conclusion is presented as Kopa’s evidence-based belief. Supporting statements are separated into facts shown by supplied documents, contemporaneous statements and Kopa’s account of its dealings with Barclays.

This is Kopa Limited’s account, built from contemporaneous records. Balkan disputes responsibility. Its position is reproduced fairly below. Readers should draw their own conclusions from the chronology and documents. Names are used only where necessary to explain who communicated or signed; passport, bank-account, family, medical and other irrelevant personal information must be redacted from any published exhibits.

The short version

Kopa believes it was subjected to a sophisticated bank-guarantee scam: a professionally documented process that extracted a USD 75,630 booking fee and a GBP 442,400 contract fee, while producing no funded credit facility and leaving Balkan able to rely on documents Kopa says it had to sign for the transaction to continue.

Kopa sought an £8 million demand guarantee intended to support a £7.2 million secured credit facility. The central issue is not simply that financing failed. It is how the fee-release conditions changed, what evidence was used to trigger the releases, why Kopa was required to sign two documents that now underpin Balkan’s defence, and how communication deteriorated after the money had been paid.

•      First, Balkan said a SWIFT pre-advice had been transmitted and invoiced the first 30% tranche on that basis.

•      Kopa immediately reported that Barclays could find neither alleged message.

•      Balkan then required a formal request, addendum and joint instructions to replace SWIFT delivery with a hard-copy guarantee.

•      After Kopa reported that Barclays’ SWIFT team had described a supplied document as not genuine, Balkan required Kopa to execute a Collateral Receipt and Acceptance stating that Balkan had fully performed.

•      Days later, the identified lender rejected drawdown because the hard-copy guarantee was not in the custody of a designated Recipient Bank. Barclays then confirmed in writing that its Trade Operations team did not offer that custody service.

•      From 1 December 2025 to 16 May 2026, 251 calls from Kopa were marked “No answer”; this included 52 voice calls and one video call from 27 March to 16 May with no completed call logged in that concentrated period.

In Kopa’s view, that sequence displays the hallmarks of a sophisticated scam rather than an ordinary financing failure: institutional-looking agreements, escrow, purported bank messages and staged signatures created an appearance of legitimacy while progressively transferring the money and contractual risk away from Kopa. Balkan denies wrongdoing. It says it delivered exactly what Kopa requested, fully performed its contract, and is not responsible for Kopa’s failure to satisfy a separate lender agreement.