Ultra-Fine Copper Powder “SKR” Fraud Attempt
On 1 July 2025, Financely received a request to finance a metals repo transaction. The submission claimed ownership of 500 kilograms of “ultra-fine nano copper powder” with a stated purity of 99.99999%, allegedly stored in the Embrach Free-Zone. The applicant valued the material at €1.15 billion, which implies a unit price of more than USD 2,300 per gram.
The valuation was disconnected from any observable copper benchmark. When a collateral claim starts with a price that bears no relationship to transparent markets, diligence becomes mandatory before any discussion of leverage, recourse, or lender routing.
1) The Billion-Value Claim
The core issue was not “exotic” product form. It was the economics. With exchange-traded copper priced orders of magnitude lower on a per-gram basis, the submission required immediate verification of (1) what the asset actually was, (2) whether it existed as described, (3) who held title, and (4) whether a reputable warehouse and insurer would stand behind it.
2) Missing Documents, Missing Control
The applicant requested USD 450 million of non-recourse financing and provided no primary collateral documentation. There was no SKR, no inspection report, no insurance evidence, and no warehouse receipt. When asked to provide the documents, the response was:
“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 explanation does not clear standard repo controls. Metals repo finance relies on credible third-party verification, insurance, and warehousing arrangements that a lender can audit. In mainstream practice, inspection and assay are typically performed by recognized groups such as SGS, Intertek, Cotecna, or Bureau Veritas. An unknown “institute” with no acceptance history in collateral markets does not substitute for an established inspector, collateral manager, or warehouse operator.
The refusal to provide documentary evidence in usable form was decisive. A lender cannot lend against “documents I saw in person.” It lends against documents that can be verified, relied upon, and enforced.
3) Financely’s Process and the Due Diligence Gate
For high-value asset-backed lending submissions where collateral is opaque or difficult to verify, Financely applies a formal gate before lender routing. In this case, we issued an engagement framework and an advanced diligence request focused on proving the asset, title, and custody arrangements.
| Workstream |
What It Establishes |
Why It Matters |
| Legal structure and documentation
|
Transaction enforceability, governing law, and financing mechanics |
Repo funding requires documentation a lender can enforce without ambiguity |
| Asset verification
|
What the material is, purity, quantity, and fungibility |
No lender funds against unverified collateral descriptions |
| Title and custody
|
Who owns it, where it is held, and who controls release |
Collateral must be controlled, not merely described |
| Warehousing and insurance
|
Warehouse receipts, insurance policies, and claims handling |
Repo structures depend on custody and insured loss pathways |
| Independent legal opinion
|
Confirmation of title, custody, and enforceability under the transaction framework |
High-value deals require independent counsel review to reduce fraud and execution risk |
The diligence requirement was direct. If the party wanted funding, the asset and its custody had to be independently verified under a bank-grade framework. The applicant could appoint counsel or allow Financely to coordinate counsel. Either path required transparent documentation.
4) The Reaction to Scrutiny
Less than 45 minutes after receiving the advanced diligence requirements, the applicant’s tone changed sharply. The reply focused on criticizing governance, fees, and process, while avoiding the central issue: the absence of verifiable collateral documentation.
“Demands a substantial non-refundable fee of USD 189,250 upfront without any binding obligation… governed by the laws of England and Wales… provides no lender transparency, no performance benchmarks, and no enforceable commitments… hosts deal documents on Fiverr Workspace, which is highly unorthodox...”
This is a common failure pattern. When legal and documentary verification becomes unavoidable, the focus moves from proving the asset to disputing the process. The applicant then demands refunds, tries to force lender identity disclosure, or attempts to pressure the advisor into skipping controls.
5) A Standard SKR Fraud Pattern
The submission aligned with familiar SKR-driven commodity fraud signals. The specifics vary, but the structure repeats.
What We Saw
- Collateral valued far beyond plausible market reference points
- Reliance on unverifiable “institutes” instead of recognized inspectors
- No warehouse receipt, insurance evidence, or inspection pack provided
- Immediate interest in lender routing without passing documentation gates
- Rapid disengagement when independent legal diligence was required
Why It Matters
- Repo lenders fund controlled assets, not claims
- Verification must be repeatable and auditable by third parties
- Insurance and custody are not optional in collateral finance
- Real counterparties accept scrutiny as part of execution
- Resistance to diligence is often the signal, not the noise
6) A Separate Concern: Token Narratives
Public statements associated with the same party indicated ambitions to launch a gold-backed token. That is not a legal conclusion. It is a practical risk observation: if a party cannot pass basic collateral verification on physical metals, any digital asset claim tied to vaulted metals warrants heightened skepticism.
Verified Collateral and Verifiable Controls
Metals repo finance is not built on screenshots, unverifiable institutes, or inflated valuations. It is built on inspection, custody, insurance, and enforceable documentation that lenders can audit.
Submit a Verified Deal
Disclaimer: This content is based on verified communications with the submitting party between 30 June and 4 July 2025. Published in line with internal risk controls and market integrity standards. Correspondence is archived and may be shared with relevant authorities upon lawful request.