Question 1

I am embarrassed. Do I have to explain everything?

Accepted Answer

You have to give us enough to work with, and nothing more. In practice that means the profile, the messages containing payment instructions, and the transfer records. Private conversations that are not relevant to the fraud can be withheld, and if you would rather not describe events verbally, a written summary is entirely sufficient. Our analysts handle these cases every week and treat them as fraud files, not personal stories.

Question 2

Is it still worth investigating if the money went to a person, not a company?

Accepted Answer

Often more so. A named individual with a bank account passed identity checks somewhere, which means records exist. Mule accounts are also reused heavily, so the same account frequently appears in several victims' reports. That combination, a real identity plus corroboration from other cases, is one of the stronger positions to be in when approaching a bank or the police.

Question 3

They asked me to receive and forward money. Am I in trouble?

Accepted Answer

Tell us, and tell your bank. Being used as an unwitting intermediary is common in these cases and being upfront about it is far better than being asked about it later. We will document how the arrangement was presented to you and what you were told, which is exactly the context that distinguishes a victim from a participant. If the exposure is serious we will say so and recommend you speak to a lawyer before anything is filed.

Question 4

Can you tell me who the person really is?

Accepted Answer

Sometimes partially, and only with corroboration. We can usually identify whose photographs were used, which accounts received the money and which network the operation belongs to. Identifying the individual typing the messages requires an operational mistake on their side. Where we find one, we document it carefully. Where we do not, we say so instead of offering a plausible name that could point at an innocent person.