How Advance-Fee Fraud Works: A Step-by-Step Breakdown

Understanding how advance-fee fraud works is the best defence against it. This page provides a step-by-step breakdown of the corporate financing variant, using documented allegations against the Corinth Group as a real-world case study.

Step 1: The Approach

The target — typically a business owner seeking EUR 5M+ in financing — is introduced to the firm through brokers, agents, or online marketing. The firm presents Swiss corporate addresses, European banking relationships, and professional marketing materials. The Corinth Group uses entities registered at Stadtgartenweg 6, Chur, Switzerland, and has operated websites at cgoch.com and corinthinvest.com [Company registrations; web archives].

In some cases, agents actively recruit targets. Complainants describe being contacted by intermediaries including brokers such as PXF Mendus Konsult and Keystone Capital, as well as regional agents like Jurie Coetzee in South Africa [Third-party complainant accounts; Ripoff Report comments].

Step 2: The Credentialling

Before any fee is discussed, the firm establishes credibility. This includes: multiple entities across jurisdictions (Switzerland, UK, Cyprus), claims of “registered and licensed investment funds,” references to specific banks, and a track record of impressive-sounding deals. The Corinth Group's website has claimed operations in seven jurisdictions — but comprehensive searches in four claimed jurisdictions (Mauritius, Ireland, Spain, Singapore) found no registered entities [Registry searches, Feb 2026].

Step 3: The Term Sheet

A professional term sheet is produced, specifying the financing amount, instrument, timeline, and parties. This document makes the transaction feel real and imminent. The term sheet may reference specific banks as financing partners. Multiple complainants report that named banks could not confirm involvement [Third-party complainant accounts].

Step 4: The Fee

To proceed, the target must sign an engagement contract (LEF) and pay upfront fees described as “cost contributions.” In the Corinth Group pattern, fees typically range from EUR 50,000 to EUR 150,000. The contract includes a refund clause (Article 26) that provides comfort — but separate exit clauses allow the provider to terminate without triggering the refund [Contract documents reviewed].

Step 5: The Delay

After payment, the timeline extends. Excuses include market conditions, regulatory requirements, bank policy changes, and documentation requests. Multiple complainants against the Corinth Group report receiving identical excuses — including specific references to “Trump tariffs” and “Bank of America policy changes” — suggesting scripted responses used across different clients [Third-party complainant accounts].

Step 6: The Exit

The financing never materialises. The engagement terminates through the contract's exit clauses. The refund clause is not honoured. The target has lost their upfront fees. In some cases, the firm suggests a “new approach” requiring additional fees.

Step 7: The Rebrand

When enough complaints accumulate under one brand, the operation rebrands. The Corinth Group network has operated under at least five sequential identities: APAHML (Hong Kong), Arcis Consortium, Curatio Capital, Corinth Group, and Three Tuns. The same individuals appear across all brands [Company registrations; complaint pattern analysis].

Warning Signs — Quick Checklist

Before engaging with any corporate financing firm, verify: (1) Are they regulated? Check FINMA, FCA, CySEC directly. (2) Do they have a verifiable track record? Ask for references. (3) Is the fee proportionate and payable on success? (4) Have they rebranded before? Search for previous names. (5) Does one person or family control all entities? (6) Are there existing complaints? Search Ripoff Report, Trustpilot, consumer forums.

Key Facts

• 7-step pattern: approach, credential, term sheet, fee, delay, exit, rebrand
• 5 sequential brand identities used by same network
• Fees EUR 50K–150K under engagement contracts with exit-clause trap
• Complainants report identical scripted excuses across different clients
• Named banks reportedly cannot confirm involvement in term sheets
• Claimed jurisdictions unverified — 4 of 7 have no registered entities
• No known funded deals documented across all brand names and years

Complaint Reports

People Involved

Related Entities

Related Investigations