Decision Pressure Check
Create space around a specific decision. This check identifies pressure factors and protective steps, not a personal susceptibility score.
Start check →A name in an advert, a domain, a surprising request for money or a promised recovery: each calls for a different check. Choose your situation and follow the sources. For a financial provider, I‑SCAN is the first lookup.
Compare identity, authorisation, website and offer before you commit.
Create space around a specific decision. This check identifies pressure factors and protective steps, not a personal susceptibility score.
Start check →A recommendation from your community deserves independent checking. Trust in people cannot replace evidence about an offer.
Start check →Before a crypto transfer or wallet authorisation, check the recipient, source and requested permission.
Start check →An unexpected contact wants money, information or access? Check the request before you act.
Start check →Explore supervisory alerts supplied to IOSCO in the analysed dataset. Continue to the 3RMCN lookup and original sources from the overview.
Open data overview →Compare an approach with independent official sources: legal entity, domain, contact, permission and payee.
Compare identities →Separate the issuing authority, subject, exact identifiers and jurisdiction of a warning before drawing conclusions.
Interpret an alert →Compare the legal entity on a site with the contract, original registers, domain and payment recipient. Record contradictions and open questions locally.
Compare identities →Assess a specific offer or recovery claim. The traffic light identifies what needs checking next.
Start pre-check →Create targeted links from a domain to independent public sources.
Create check links →Use documented patterns and cases to turn a vague concern into a precise question.
Fraud exploits trust and decision situations. Those who deceive bear responsibility, not those affected.
Explore mechanisms →Ten topics on provider identity, payment routes, digital traces and evidence, with sources and a first check.
Explore knowledge →Explore 44 methods by features, targets, channels and warning signs.
Explore patterns →Distinguish promotional charts, backtests and live results, then inspect completeness, costs, losses and independent verification.
Check the track record →Inspect the economics of a recommendation, the visible link and the evidence behind a provider claim.
Examine a referral →Read supervisory decisions and ombudsman cases in their original context.
Explore cases →Recognise the sequence, objectives and pressure tactics of unsolicited investment calls.
Understand the method →When an acquaintance becomes an investment adviser, trust should not replace verification. Here, financial grooming means deliberately building a relationship to influence financial decisions.
Explore the pattern →A side job, a favour or a supposedly mistaken payment: if someone wants foreign funds routed through your account, independent scrutiny is needed immediately.
Explore the pattern →You are selling an item, yet suddenly you are asked to pay. A supposed buyer demands an advance for transport, insurance or export. Check the direction of payment before acting.
Explore the pattern →The priority changes after contact, payment or a recovery approach.
Practical steps before paying, after contact, after a loss and when recovery is promised.
Choose a situation →Record contacts, claims, payments and evidence references in chronological order; export a local working note.
Build a timeline →Examine an offer to recover lost funds: identity, advance fees, access requests, guarantees and evidence.
Check a recovery claim →Find a suitable route for a complaint, police report or supervisory tip. Check deadlines and jurisdiction for your case.
Find a route →Prepare factual information and use an appropriate official route while our protected channel is being developed.
What makes a report verifiable and which official routes are available. Our protected intake is in development.
Prepare a report →A defined provider, conduct or forensic review can bring multiple sources together. The questions, scope and expertise are agreed for the individual case.
Suggest a behaviour not yet described for editorial review.
Submit a pattern →