10 Red Flags to Watch for in Financial Documents

Fraud wears a lot of hats. Sometimes it’s a forged MT103. Sometimes it’s a “$10 billion” bond from a “private trading group” out of Dubai. Whatever the disguise, one thing is consistent: these documents are almost always shared by someone on WhatsApp, sent from a free email account, and loaded with errors, contradictions, and nonsense.

Here’s a breakdown of the top 10 red flags I look for when reviewing financial documents — whether it’s a proof of funds, MT103, bank instrument, or some laughable “insurance wrapper” pitch.

1. 📱 WhatsApp as the Primary Communication Channel

If someone’s trying to move millions — or billions — through an international financial instrument, but they’re only reachable via WhatsApp, it’s a red flag the size of a defaulted sovereign bond.

Legitimate financial institutions don’t broker deals through group chats.

2. 📧 Free Email Domains (Gmail, Yahoo, Proton)

A so-called banker or intermediary using @gmail.com or @proton.me has no business representing a $100 million MT103. If there's no verifiable corporate domain, no secure communications, and no traceable company footprint — it’s a con.

3. 🧾 Spelling, Grammar, and Formatting Errors

We’ve seen it all:

• “Plase confrim the funds has been sent.”
• Logos stretched like they were faxed in 1998
• Tables misaligned, fonts switching mid-sentence
• Claims of “Quadrillion-dollar” transactions (yes, really)

Real banks don’t send documents that read like phishing emails from 2004.

4. 🕵️‍♂️ Vague Job Titles and No LinkedIn Presence

They’re always a “facilitator,” “program manager,” or “compliance officer” — but there’s no LinkedIn, no corporate website, no business registry match. If the person handling sensitive multi-million-dollar transactions has no digital paper trail, that’s not discretion — it’s a fabrication.

5. 🔗 No Verifiable Contact Info

No office address. No desk line. No traceable employer. They’ll often dodge requests for verifiable documentation, citing “confidentiality,” “NDAs,” or “bank secrecy” — all of which are misused as shields to prevent scrutiny.

6. 💰 Numbers That Don’t Add Up

$33 million credit cards. $3 billion MT103s. $10 quadrillion “insurance wraps.” These people routinely misuse financial terms and throw around numbers like they’re playing Monopoly. Ask for documentation that proves it — and watch how fast they go quiet or get hostile.

7. 📄 Poorly Faked Documents

These often include:

• Inconsistent SWIFT message formatting
• Bank logos pulled from Google Images
• Missing or misaligned watermarking
• Codes that don’t match the claimed institution
• QR codes that don’t scan or lead nowhere

A trained eye can spot these fakes instantly — but even a casual look reveals the seams.

8. 🧠 Misuse of Financial Terminology

They’ll say things like:

• “The money is on ledger but off balance sheet.”
• “We’re sending DTC via MT199.”
• “It’s Tier 1 capital backed by insurance.”

It sounds technical, but it’s word salad. They string together impressive-sounding terms to confuse and impress the uninitiated. If you ask them to define one of these terms clearly, they’ll usually pivot or ghost.

9. ⛓️ No Chain of Custody or Institutional Verification

Legitimate funds transfers and documents will have a clear chain of custody, time stamps, references, and originating bank confirmation. These fakes never do. If they can’t provide verification via the issuing institution, it’s likely forged.

10. 🤖 Obvious Copy-Paste Templates

Many of these scams run off the same templates:

• Identical MT103 forms recycled with different names
• Bank documents where only the dollar amount has changed
• Blank pages attached to "add legitimacy"

If you run enough of them through your hands, the pattern becomes obvious.

Final Thoughts

If you’re reviewing financial documents and your gut says something’s off — trust it. These scammers thrive on confusion, pressure, and the illusion of legitimacy.

Stay sharp. Trust nothing without proof.