Term Sheet Fraud: Professional Documents, No Actual Financing

In corporate financing fraud, professionally drafted term sheets serve as a key tool to legitimise fee collection. This page explains how term sheets are used in the advance-fee model and documents the pattern described by complainants against the Corinth Group network.

What Is a Term Sheet?

A term sheet is a non-binding document outlining the key terms and conditions of a proposed financial transaction. In legitimate deals, term sheets serve as a basis for negotiation before binding agreements are finalised. They typically specify: the amount of financing, the financial instrument (equity, debt, mezzanine), key conditions, timeline, and the parties involved.

Term Sheets in Advance-Fee Fraud

In the advance-fee variant, term sheets serve a different purpose: they create the appearance of an imminent transaction to justify the collection of upfront fees. The term sheet looks professional and specific — naming banks, specifying amounts, detailing timelines — which persuades the client that financing is genuinely being arranged. The upfront fees are then presented as necessary costs to progress the transaction described in the term sheet.

Key characteristics of fraudulent term sheets include: (1) They reference banks or institutions that have not actually committed to the transaction; (2) They specify ambitious timelines that are never met; (3) They are revised repeatedly with new terms and new timelines; (4) The named financial institutions, when contacted, have no record of the proposed transaction.

The Corinth Group Term Sheet Pattern

Complainants against the Corinth Group describe receiving detailed term sheets specifying financing amounts, European banking partners, and transaction timelines. After upfront fees are paid based on these term sheets, the described transactions do not materialise. Complainants report that: term sheet timelines are repeatedly extended; banking partners named in term sheets cannot confirm involvement; and when challenged, the engagement terminates through contractual exit clauses [Third-party complainant accounts].

The contracts associated with these term sheets contain a refund provision (Article 26) promising return of fees if the transaction does not proceed. However, separate exit clauses (Articles 5.6, 6.1, 6.6) provide the service provider with broad grounds to terminate the engagement and argue that fees are not refundable under the specific circumstances of termination [Contract documents reviewed].

Scale and Duration

This pattern has been documented across multiple brand names used by the same network: Curatio Capital (~2010), Arcis Consortium, Corinth Group, and Three Tuns. The same individuals appear across all brands, and the same advance-fee model is described by complainants in each iteration. Total losses across all known complainants are estimated at EUR 2.5M+ [Investigation analysis of complainant reports].

Due Diligence on Term Sheets

Before paying fees based on a term sheet: (1) Independently verify that the named bank or institution has approved the term sheet; (2) Request direct contact with the financing institution; (3) Check the track record of the arranging entity — have they completed similar transactions? (4) Have an independent lawyer review both the term sheet and the engagement contract; (5) Search for complaints about the arranging entity online.

Key Facts

• Term sheets create appearance of imminent transaction to justify fee collection
• Complainants report term sheets reference banks that have not committed
• Corinth pattern: term sheet timelines repeatedly extended, deals never close
• Refund clause (Art 26) undermined by broad exit provisions
• Same pattern across 4+ brand names: Curatio, Arcis, Corinth, Three Tuns
• Total documented losses: EUR 2.5M+ across all known complainants
• Always verify term sheet claims directly with named banking partners

Complaint Reports

People Involved

Related Entities

Related Investigations