Advisory Standards And Bad Faith Screening
When a Prospect Calls You a Scam for Charging Fees
This post documents a real interaction where a prospect escalated into “scam” allegations immediately after seeing that we charge for consultations and paid deal review. We do not trade insults. We document. We rebut facts. We disengage.
If you have a real transaction,
submit it through our intake.
This is not a personal profile piece. We are not speculating about anyone’s private life or motives. We are addressing written statements and professional conduct that crossed into threats and false allegations.
Chronology
| Sequence |
What Happened |
| 1 |
Dr. sc. Denis Bednyagin contacted us regarding trade finance and a gold flow. |
| 2 |
We replied with screening questions and explained scope: underwriting preparation, structuring, documentation review, and presentation to independent capital providers under written terms and fees. |
| 3 |
Once fees were mentioned, he alleged our paid consultation and deal review “looks like an African scam.” |
| 4 |
He escalated to “fee-for-no-service fraud,” threatened to post in scam alert networks, and added personal insults. |
| 5 |
He also attacked an early-stage token concept as “a scam” based on assumptions, despite no product launch and no funds being accepted. |
The Transaction He Presented
The proposed flow was described as follows.
| Item |
As Presented |
| Origin |
Ghana |
| Quantity |
100 kg per week |
| Pricing |
LBMA minus 5% (including intermediaries fees) |
| End Buyer |
Well established licensed gold refinery in India |
| Shipment Size |
About USD 16.1 million per 100 kg |
| Payment |
Bank wire within 2 to 3 days upon delivery and assay verification |
If someone claims they are moving 100 kg per week, then paying for a professional deal review should not cause panic or rage. A serious counterparty either engages under written terms, or they walk away. They do not try to shame a firm into working for free.
The Pivot: Fees Triggered Accusations
The accusations began once it was clear that our work is paid professional advisory, not free “quick answers” on a multi-million dollar structure.
“Your offer of paid consultation & documents review looks more like an ‘African scam’ rather than a legit business.”
Excerpt from his written message.
The next message escalated further into a fraud allegation and a threat of public posting.
“This project is a fee-for-no-service fraud. I will put a notice in scam alert networks.”
Excerpt from his written message.
Calling a firm “fraud” because it charges fees is not diligence. It is an attempt to pressure the other side. It also signals bad faith, and we treat it as such.
The “Risk Free Arbitrage” Commodity Pattern
We see a recurring internet pattern in commodity outreach: a benchmark-minus discount narrative, fast settlement promises, and a suggestion that the only missing piece is “a financier.” It is framed as low-risk arbitrage. Real underwriting does not work like that.
We have documented why these “risk free” gold stories waste time and fail screening in this analysis.
Discount Is Not Security
“LBMA minus X” is not collateral. Lenders require enforceable controls: title, custody, export rights, compliance posture, and settlement proofs.
Fast Payment Stories Are Not Guarantees
“Wire in 2 to 3 days” is not risk elimination. Underwriting requires written offtake terms, intake confirmations, payment history, and legal enforceability.
Volume Claims Do Not Equal Track Record
Weekly volume claims mean nothing without verifiable documentation. Bankable files are boring: contracts, KYC, routing, custody, insurance, and settlement evidence.
Threats Replace Substance
When a prospect jumps to insults and publication threats, it becomes a conduct issue, not a transaction discussion.
The Token Accusation Was Also Premature
In the same interaction, Dr. sc. Denis Bednyagin alleged that our Trade Finance Token initiative was a scam because it was described as anonymous at an early stage.
There is a difference between asking for governance and controls, versus declaring “fraud” based on assumptions. Early-stage initiatives should be judged by what exists at launch: disclosures, controls, audits, and lawful operating structure.
If you have actual experience evaluating blockchain products, you know what matters: smart contract audits, treasury controls, transparent reporting, and clear disclosures. These are objective checks. They beat posturing. They also beat the fake “I can spot scams by vibes” routine.
What Our Fees Pay For
We charge for professional time. That time produces concrete outputs. We do not sell fantasies. We do not sell guaranteed funding. We sell underwriting-grade work product.
| Workstream |
Typical Output |
| Deal Review |
Document checklist, gaps, red flags, feasibility view, next-step path to lender-grade packaging |
| Structuring |
Risk allocation, custody and control plan, settlement flow, conditions and protections |
| Underwriting Preparation |
KYC pack, counterparty mapping, compliance narrative, source and use of funds logic |
| Distribution Support |
Targeted presentation, Q&A coordination, iteration toward indicative terms |
Our Policy When Someone Threatens Defamation
Preserve Evidence
We preserve the full record: emails, timestamps, and context. We do not debate via insults.
Formal Notice
If threats of publication continue, we issue a formal notice and require retraction. We also require evidence preservation.
Right Of Response
Correspondence stays private by default. If false allegations are published, we reserve the right to correct the public record with limited excerpts needed for context, consistent with our Privacy Policy.
Platform And Legal Remedies
We pursue takedowns and lawful remedies where publication occurs and where harm is suffered. We do not “negotiate” with threats.
Professional disagreement is fine. False allegations and threats are not. If you want diligence, do diligence. If you want free labor, say that plainly. Do not hide behind “scam” language when the real issue is that you do not want to pay for professional work.
Submit A Real Transaction
If your deal is genuine, it should stand up to underwriting. Start with a proper submission and documentation.
Submit Your Deal
Frequently Asked Questions
Is charging for a consultation a red flag?
No. Defined professional services with defined scope are normal. The red flag is vague “unlock” fees tied to fantasies or guaranteed outcomes.
Do you guarantee funding after a deal review?
No. A deal review is analysis and packaging. Funding decisions are made by independent capital providers.
Why do “risk free arbitrage” gold pitches fail screening?
Because lenders require enforceable controls: documented title transfer, custody, compliance, insurance, and settlement evidence, not stories.
What happens if someone posts false allegations?
We preserve evidence, issue formal notice, pursue takedowns where appropriate, and reserve a right of response to correct the record.