Fact-checking is a potentially useful application of Large Language Models (LLMs) to combat the growing dissemination of disinformation. However, the performance of LLMs varies across geographic regions. In this paper, we evaluate the factual accuracy of open and private models across a diverse set of regions and scenarios. Using a dataset containing 600 fact-checked statements balanced across six global regions we examine three experimental setups of fact-checking a statement: (1) when just the statement is available, (2) when an LLM-based agent with Wikipedia access is utilized, and (3) as a best case scenario when a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system provided with the official fact check is employed. Our findings reveal that regardless of the scenario and LLM used, including GPT-4, Claude Sonnet, and LLaMA, statements from the Global North perform substantially better than those from the Global South. Furthermore, this gap is broadened for the more realistic case of a Wikipedia agent-based system, highlighting that overly general knowledge bases have a limited ability to address region-specific nuances. These results underscore the urgent need for better dataset balancing and robust retrieval strategies to enhance LLM fact-checking capabilities, particularly in geographically diverse contexts.