[jacquesm]

I've been in this for a decade, so no, it's not new, but it could very well be a European thing. Even so, I find it hard to believe US investors would cut 7 figure or higher checks without wanting to know who they're getting in bed with.

> What kind of investor was this that required background checks?

A fairly large portion of them, with an accent on financial services and health care related affairs as well as two sided marketplaces because of the potential for fraud and money laundering.

> A public company that acquires a company managed by a felon might have to restate financials or write down part of an acquisition's value, which leaves me wondering about the supposed disparity.

Well, whether or not they are a felon isn't as important as whether or not they are currently up to something that is not proper. And that's the first thing a DD tries to find out and a background check could help to flag potentially problematic cases.

If I came across a financial services company run by someone who has already had a fraud charge stick that would definitely result in a mention to the investors and could very well result in a deal not going through.