Commodity Joker Brokers, Imaginary Ultra Fine Copper Powder, and a $1 Billion Claim Without Evidence

1. The Setup

On 1 July 2025, we were approached by a party operating through a Swiss entity, claiming to own 500 kilograms of Cu 99.99999% ultra fine copper powder, allegedly stored in the Embrach Free-Zone and “worth” over €1.15 billion.

That valuation equates to approximately USD 2,300 per gram. At the time, LME spot copper was trading at around $9,000 per metric tonne—meaning the submitted value was inflated by over 250,000%. The party requested $450 million in non-recourse financing, referencing supposed title to the goods and “supporting documentation.” None was uploaded.

2. Early Doubts

We requested basic verification:

• Who inspected the metal?
• Can you provide the SKR and assay?
• Which warehouse confirmed the custody?

The response:

"It is stored in Embrach Free-Zone. The SKR has been issued by ISE in Lucerne (Institute of Rare Earth & Metals). The analysis was done less than 6 months ago by the ISE. I have personally seen all the key documents in original."

That triggered immediate red flags. “ISE” is not a recognized inspection or verification agency. It does not appear on any lender-approved inspection panel. Reputable names in this space include SGS, Intertek, Bureau Veritas, and Cotecna. ISE is unknown in both commodity and credit markets.

For someone claiming over $1 billion in ultra high-grade copper powder, refusing to upload a single inspection certificate or warehouse release note was a clear warning sign.

3. Standard Process Followed

Despite clear inconsistencies, we proceeded with standard protocol. Financely issued a compliant engagement package:

• Engagement letter governed by English law
• A $189,250 retainer, split into two tranches
• A 3% success fee on funded amount

Given the nature of the collateral, our Advanced Due Diligence (ADD) protocol was triggered. We requested a formal legal opinion under the GMRA framework, issued by one of five pre-approved Tier 1 law firms.

The client was given two options:

• Engage Allen & Overy, Clifford Chance, Linklaters, Mayer Brown, or Norton Rose directly, and upload the signed legal opinion
• Or, have Financely engage counsel on their behalf after receiving the first tranche of the retainer ($89,250)

This is standard. Exotic claims, unverifiable SKRs, and non-accredited warehouses must pass ADD before being shown to our lending panel.

4. The Meltdown

Instead of proceeding, the applicant refused the legal opinion request outright. Within minutes, we received a grievance email alleging:

• “Demands a substantial non-refundable fee of USD 189,250 upfront without any binding obligation”
• “Governing law is England and Wales… yet you present yourself as U.S.-based”
• “Documents hosted on Fiverr Workspace, which raises serious concerns over institutional credibility”

They called the structure “asymmetrical” and “risk-heavy.” Then they demanded a refund and cut off contact. No documentation was ever provided—no SKR, assay, warehouse ID, or certificate. Nothing.

5. A Textbook SKR Fraud Attempt

This followed the classic SKR fraud pattern:

• Make outlandish claims about rare, high-value metal holdings
• Refuse to provide basic documentation
• Reference unknown third-party “verifiers”
• Push for access to lender information without passing KYC
• Disappear once legal review or fees are required

These cases are often about harvesting underwriting data and lender contacts—not about real metals. In this case, the supposed verification entity didn’t even exist in professional circles.

6. The Token Red Flag

Public information suggests the party is also connected to a purported gold-backed token. If they can’t pass basic verification on alleged $1 billion copper holdings, how could they support a digital asset supposedly backed by vaulted gold?

No credible investor should take such claims seriously without clear, third-party validation. Walking away from $450 million in financing over a legal opinion request is not a procedural disagreement. It’s a signal that the entire story is fiction.

7. Final Word

Financely followed all procedures. We issued a compliant mandate, made the legal opinion requirement clear, and acted professionally. In return, we encountered bad-faith tactics and zero cooperation.

The file is closed. Our compliance team may escalate if false representations continue.

We remain committed to protecting the structured finance sector from attempts to exploit it through misinformation or fabricated collateral.

© Financely Group. This article is based on documented correspondence. All statements reflect real interactions with the party in question and are backed by internal records.