Increased Sophistication In ‘Forward Fee’ And Financing Scams: Red Flags And Practical Mitigation Steps

There has been a noticeable uptick in sophisticated scam arrangements targeting corporates in the energy, infrastructure and broader commercial sectors, particularly in relation to purported financing and procurement opportunities.

These schemes no longer follow a basic level of complexity. In several recent matters, counterparties presented seemingly credible transaction packages and supporting documentation, including:

• professionally prepared financing agreements tailored to the client;
• audited financial statements attributed to reputable international audit firms;
• commercial registration documents and corporate materials; and
• credible group structures involving well-known regional entities.

In reality, these materials were fabricated.

When it was all pieced together, it became apparent that the counterparty was not legitimate.

Why This Matters

What is notable, and concerning, is the level of sophistication now being deployed. The use of documentation closely resembling authentic licenses and corporate documentation, combined with increasingly convincing commercial narratives, suggests that bad actors are using advanced tools (including AI) to replicate legitimate credentials. This significantly reduces the effectiveness of traditional “sense checks” based purely on documentation quality or commercial plausibility.

We are also aware of instances where corporates have incurred losses, including:

• upfront “processing” or “commitment” fees;
• upfront bid bonds and vendor registration fees; and
• disclosure of client’s sensitive information and business practices under the guise of procurement-style vetting.

Key Red Flags

While each situation is fact-specific, recurring indicators include:

• Inconsistencies in verifiable information, including discrepancies between presented documents and publicly available records;
• Third-party involvement that cannot be independently confirmed (e.g., audit firms, banks or group affiliations);
• Lack of physical or operational footprint;
• Unusual urgency or commercial pressure, including requests to proceed quickly or bypass standard diligence; and
• Requests for upfront payments, particularly when framed as administrative, legal or commitment fees.

Practical Steps to Mitigate Risk

To mitigate exposure to potential scams, we recommend the following approach:

• Independent verification: Do not rely solely on documents provided. Independently verify:
  • corporate existence and licensing;
  • auditor (or other third-party) involvement; and
  • group affiliations.
• Early legal sense check: A short, targeted legal review at an early stage can often quickly and cost-effectively identify red flags, before significant time or money is committed.
• Direct third-party confirmation: Where reputable firms (e.g., auditors, banks, parent companies) are referenced, seek direct confirmation through official channels.
• Scrutiny of payment mechanics: Treat any request for upfront payments with caution, particularly when not aligned with market practice.
• Trust escalation instincts: If something feels “off” commercially or procedurally, it warrants further investigation. In our experience, early hesitation is often justified.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.