Upfront Fee Fraud: Demanding Payment Before Any Service Is Delivered

Upfront fee fraud — also known as advance-fee fraud — involves demanding substantial payments before any service is provided. In the corporate financing sector, this takes the form of 'cost contributions' or 'due diligence fees' that must be paid before financing is arranged. This page examines the pattern and its connection to the Corinth Group network.

The Upfront Fee Model

Legitimate corporate financing firms typically operate on a success-fee basis: they earn their compensation when financing is successfully arranged. While some legitimate firms charge modest retainers or expense deposits, the defining feature of upfront fee fraud is that the fee itself — not the successful completion of the engagement — is the primary revenue source for the provider.

Multiple complainants describe the Corinth Group's business model as follows: clients seeking corporate financing are asked to sign engagement contracts (referred to as LEF — Letter of Engagement/Fees) that require substantial upfront payments, typically in the range of EUR 50,000 to EUR 150,000. These fees are described as “cost contributions” for due diligence, legal structuring, and bank introductions [Third-party complainant accounts; contract documents reviewed].

Contractual Architecture

The engagement contracts contain several notable features described by complainants:

Article 6/30 — Regulatory claims: Contracts reportedly describe the entities as “regulated and licensed,” a claim inconsistent with the actual regulatory status of the Swiss AGs (no FINMA authorisation) and the Cyprus entity (CySEC license revoked October 2022) [Contract documents; FINMA register; CySEC AIFM register].

Article 26 — Refund clause: Contracts include provisions for fee refunds if the transaction does not proceed. This clause appears designed to provide comfort to clients that their upfront payment is protected [Contract documents reviewed].

Exit clauses: However, the contracts also contain broad exit provisions: Article 5.6 allows termination “for whatever reason,” Article 6.1 covers “circumstances beyond control,” and Article 6.6 addresses “material changes.” These clauses, combined with provisions to claim damages, create a mechanism by which the provider can terminate the engagement and retain the fees [Contract documents reviewed].

The Result: No Known Funded Deals

Despite collecting upfront fees over a period spanning 12+ years under multiple brand names (Curatio Capital, Arcis Consortium, Corinth Group, Three Tuns), no evidence has been found of any completed financing transaction. No complainant reports receiving the promised financing. No public record — annual reports, press releases, or regulatory filings — documents a completed deal [Investigation analysis; no contradictory evidence found].

Protecting Yourself

Before paying upfront fees to any corporate financing provider: (1) Verify regulatory authorisation with the relevant financial regulator; (2) Request references from previously completed transactions; (3) Have the engagement contract reviewed by an independent lawyer; (4) Research the entity and its directors on company registries; (5) Search for complaints or fraud reports online; (6) Be wary of refund clauses combined with broad exit provisions.

Key Facts

• Legitimate financing firms typically work on success-fee basis
• Corinth pattern: EUR 50K–150K upfront as 'cost contributions'
• Contracts claim 'regulated and licensed' — inconsistent with regulatory status
• Refund clause (Art 26) undermined by broad exit provisions (Art 5.6, 6.1, 6.6)
• No known funded deals documented across 12+ years and 5 brand names
• Multiple complainants describe identical contractual architecture
• CySEC license revoked Oct 2022 — no current authorisation anywhere

Complaint Reports

People Involved

Related Entities

Related Investigations