MT799 RWA Proof Of Funds: Mobilization Comes First
MT799 RWA gets requested in a lot of commodity conversations as if it were a product you can order before anything is funded, approved, or mobilized.
That expectation is wrong and it is the fastest way to spot a non-execution-ready party.
In real deals, proof of funds is the result of a funding plan that is already deliverable. The wording comes late, after the file has been screened and underwritten.
The “verbiage problem” is usually a made-up issue used to delay mobilization.
Core rule:
before any credible proof of funds can be delivered, the underlying capital must be mobilized or clearly deliverable through an approved facility. MT799 is a free-format SWIFT message used to communicate information. It does not create funding by itself.
What MT799 RWA Is
MT799 is a free-format SWIFT message
MT799 is commonly described as a “free-format” information message used within SWIFT MT standards. It is narrative-driven. It does not transfer value and it does not, by itself, create an enforceable obligation to a beneficiary.
Reference points: SWIFT standards documentation and trade finance reference material published by major banks. See links in the Sources section below.
“RWA” is market slang, not a SWIFT product
“RWA” is typically used to mean “Ready, Willing, and Able.” It is a label parties attach to the narrative to signal readiness, usually subject to conditions, approvals, and documentation.
The presence of confident language does not override KYC, AML, sanctions screening, credit policy, or documentary requirements.
What Must Be Mobilized Before Any Proof Of Funds
A bank or regulated counterparty cannot responsibly “confirm” capacity for a transaction that has no funded backbone.
Before any proof of funds message is even worth discussing, the client needs a real mobilization path.
Cash, margin, or escrow placement
If the structure requires cash support, it must be in place or clearly deliverable:
- Cash on hand
evidenced through regulated statements or custodian evidence.
- Cash margin
that an issuing bank requires for LC or SBLC issuance.
- Escrow deposit
with a regulated escrow agent when the transaction uses escrow mechanics.
- Control of funds
documented through account control, escrow agreements, or bank-side restrictions where applicable.
Approved facilities and credit capacity
If the funding plan is credit-based, capacity must be real, not aspirational:
- Approved trade line or revolving facility
with defined limits, tenor, and conditions.
- LC or SBLC issuance capacity
based on bank policy and client risk rating.
- Collateral and controls
that match the facility requirements (inventory, receivables, cash controls).
- Decision maker alignment
so credit approvals can be executed on schedule.
Why Verbiage Comes Last
In bankable execution, wording is not the first step. It is a late-stage output.
Drafting comes after onboarding and underwriting, because the message content depends on what the underwriter can defend.
The verbiage is also rarely the real issue. It can be non-committal or more committal if the lender agrees, and it remains subject to underwriting, approvals, and documentation.
What kills the process is “verbiage ping pong” by parties who have not mobilized the capital needed to back the transaction.
What drives the wording
- Who the parties are and what compliance screening permits.
- What capital is actually mobilized or deliverable.
- What facility or instrument is being supported.
- What conditions must be stated to remain accurate and compliant.
What does not drive the wording
- A counterparty demand to “confirm bank details first.”
- A request to “pre-confirm blocked funds” before screening and underwriting.
- An attempt to make the advisor carry risk without mobilization.
- A tactic to delay payment, delay KYC, or shop language.
The Bankable Sequence For MT799 RWA
If you want to keep the transaction inside a credible, compliant process, this is the order:
1) Transaction file and counterparties
Sale contract status, commercial terms, jurisdictions, counterparties, and timeline. No file, no process.
2) KYC, AML, sanctions screening
Beneficial ownership, business profile, and screening across parties and relevant touchpoints. Regulated execution starts here.
3) Capital raising and mobilization
Margin plan, escrow plan, facility plan, collateral plan, and evidence that funds are deliverable within the timeline.
4) Underwriting and approvals
Credit review, controls, documentary requirements, and approval pathway. This is where reality is confirmed.
5) Drafting and messaging
If MT799 RWA is appropriate, it is drafted within bank constraints, routed through controlled channels, and aligned with the counterparty.
6) Execution and delivery
Controlled delivery, follow-on instruments where needed, and operational go-live with the agreed controls.
How Non-Funded Parties Waste Time
Broker jokers and wanna-be traders with no mobilized capital often try to turn MT799 into a substitute for funding.
The pattern is consistent:
- They request “the most committal” wording before any onboarding.
- They refuse to mobilize margin, escrow, or equity until a counterparty “approves the draft.”
- They attempt to make the bank identity itself the deliverable.
- They loop the conversation into repeated edits so they can look active without funding the transaction.
That is not a negotiation about wording. It is a refusal to do the real work: mobilize the capital that backs the trade.
FAQ
Can MT799 RWA be standardized?
The structure and tone can be standardized since it is a free-format narrative and many institutions use similar styles. The content still must remain accurate and compliant for the specific file.
Is MT799 RWA proof of blocked funds?
No. “Blocked funds” is an account control concept. It requires controlled documentation and bank-side controls. A narrative message does not create or prove a funds restriction by itself.
Is verbiage ever the real blocker?
Rarely. In properly run files, wording is agreed between parties and aligned to what the lender will support, subject to underwriting and approvals. The common blocker is missing mobilization, not wording.
What do you need to start a real MT799 RWA process?
Counterparties and transaction status, jurisdictions, a KYC pack, a defined capital mobilization plan (equity, margin, escrow, facility), and a timeline that matches what can actually be executed.
Sources
We prefer primary sources and bank-grade reference material:
Request A Quote
If you need MT799 RWA support tied to a real mobilization plan, we can underwrite the file, define the controls, and coordinate drafting and bank-side workflow through regulated counterparties.
Share counterparties, jurisdictions, contract status, required amount, and your capital mobilization plan.
Request A Quote
Disclaimer: This page is for general information only. It does not constitute legal, tax, regulatory, investment, or credit advice and it is not an offer or commitment by Financely or any third party to provide any financing, LC, SBLC, guarantee, or other instrument. Financely is not a bank, lender, insurer, surety, broker-dealer, or investment adviser. Any instrument or facility is issued or provided solely by regulated counterparties under their own licenses, approvals, policies, and documentation. All transactions are subject to eligibility, KYC and AML review, sanctions screening, credit approval, and execution of definitive agreements.