When Sponsors With No Equity Call Legitimate Advisors “Scammers”

Every capital advisory firm sees the same pattern. An email arrives describing a “serious project” and “long term cooperation”. The requested facility is large, the timing is urgent, and the sender claims to be ready to move. As soon as basic questions are asked about equity, documentation, and underwriting fees, the tone flips. The sponsor who was “ready to proceed” suddenly declares that any firm asking for fees or requiring equity is “a scam organization”.

The Bait And Switch Email That Always Ends With “Scam”

The script is remarkably consistent. It starts with flattering language and urgency. A typical first message reads:

“We have a serious project and long term partnership potential. We are ready to move immediately with the right advisor.”

Once we ask for financial statements, corporate documents, evidence of equity, and clarity on security, the tone shifts. A follow up email arrives:

“We do not pay any upfront fees under any circumstances. If you are genuine, you will work on success fee only and arrange 100% funding.”

At that point, the reality is straightforward. There is no identifiable equity, no willingness to fund underwriting, and no understanding of basic credit discipline. When we clarify that:

• we only act where sponsors have cash equity at risk,
• we charge for structured work, and
• no serious lender grants 100 percent financing to unknown parties with no consideration paid,

the final email often looks like this:

“FINANCELY IS A SCAM ORGANIZATION. DO NOT CONTACT US AGAIN.”

That is not due diligence. It is a failed attempt to bully an advisor into working for free and accepting all risk, dressed up as moral outrage.

Why Sponsors With No Equity And No Fees Are Declined

In credit markets, “equity” is not just money. It is proof that the sponsor is prepared to share risk and consequences. When a sponsor states, in writing:

“We have no equity to contribute. You must arrange 100% funding and be paid only if we receive money.”

they are revealing several things about their own position:

• Their commitment is verbal, not financial.
• They expect others to underwrite, structure, and place risk without any cost being covered.
• They are prepared to walk away if anything becomes difficult, because they have nothing at stake.

No serious lender or advisor is comfortable with that profile. Declining such approaches is not “being difficult”. It is basic risk management. The fact that some of these sponsors react with personal insults and “scam” allegations once their expectations are challenged only confirms that the decision to disengage was correct.

The Word “Scam” Is Not A Negotiating Tool

There is a critical distinction between disagreement and defamation. A sponsor is entirely free to say:

“We do not agree with your fee structure and will not proceed.”

That is a commercial difference of opinion. The moment they write:

“Financely is a scam organization and we will expose you,”

they are not merely expressing a preference. They are asserting as fact that we engage in fraudulent conduct. When statements like this are false, circulated to third parties, and likely to cause reputational and financial damage, they move into the territory of defamation and similar causes of action under applicable law.

Some senders appear to believe that threatening to “go public” with reckless accusations will pressure an advisory firm into cutting fees or accepting unreasonable demands. That belief is misplaced. It simply flags them as high risk and unsuitable for any engagement. It also creates a paper trail that can be used against them if they choose to escalate their claims outside private correspondence.

How We Respond To Baseless “Scam” Allegations And Online Attacks

We do not treat defamatory language as harmless noise. When someone crosses the line from frustration into written accusations such as “FINANCELY IS A SCAM ORGANIZATION”, we respond in a structured and measured way.

We will not allow anonymous emails or careless online comments to define our reputation. Our duty is to our legitimate clients and counterparties, and that includes pushing back firmly against those who throw accusations around to distract from their own unwillingness to meet standard market terms.

How Serious Sponsors Behave When They Disagree

By contrast, sponsors who are credible, even when they decide not to proceed, behave in a very different way. A sponsor who decides that our model is not right for them will usually say something along the lines of:

“Thank you for the proposal. We are not in a position to pay the required fees at this time and will explore other options.”

That response is direct, honest, and professional. It acknowledges that advisory work has a cost, even if that cost does not suit them. It does not attempt to weaponize the word “scam” or threaten reputational damage for leverage. Those sponsors remain welcome to return when their situation changes.

The difference is stark. One group relies on baseless accusations and inflated self confidence, demanding conditions that no lender with a credit committee would accept. The other group understands that if they expect experienced advisors and regulated capital providers to engage, they must bring equity, data, respect for process, and respect for the truth.

Financely acts as arranger and advisor through regulated partners. Where lending or securities activity requires registration, activity is carried out by or through appropriately licensed firms in the relevant jurisdictions. Nothing in this article is an offer to lend, an offer of securities, or a commitment to provide financing. References to emails and quotations in this article illustrate common patterns of behaviour and are not legal findings about any specific person or entity. Any mandate is subject to full KYC, AML, and sanctions screening, credit approval by funding counterparties, and formal written agreements that set out scope, fees, and conditions.