Scam Risk Assessment Quiz

Why Scam Vulnerability Is Not About Intelligence

The most persistent — and most dangerous — myth about financial fraud is that it only affects uninformed or unsophisticated people. It does not. Fraud operations are professionally designed, psychologically calibrated, and iteratively refined to deceive people across every demographic, education level, and professional background. The factors that increase vulnerability are situational and behavioural, not intellectual. This quiz assesses five dimensions of fraud risk: investment and broker fraud, crypto platform fraud, romance and pig butchering scams, supplier and B2B fraud, and property fraud. For each question, read the answer options and the feedback beneath them carefully — the feedback is where the practical value lies. Answer honestly. The quiz is only useful if your answers reflect your actual behaviour and current situation, not the behaviour you intend to adopt.  

Part 1: Investment and Broker Fraud Risk

Q1. How did you first hear about the investment platform or broker you are currently using — or most recently considered using?

1. A) Through a paid advertisement on social media, YouTube, or a search engine Elevated risk. The majority of fraudulent investment platforms are recruited through paid digital advertising, frequently using fabricated celebrity endorsements or algorithmically targeted financial content. A platform you discovered through an advertisement warrants full regulatory verification before any deposit — check the FCA register, ESMA, ASIC, or the relevant regulator directly. The platform’s name appearing in an ad is not evidence of legitimacy.
2. B) Through a personal recommendation from someone I know and trust in real life Lower risk, but not zero. Personal recommendations from trusted contacts reduce — but do not eliminate — fraud risk. Your contact may themselves have been deceived, or may be participating in a referral scheme they do not fully understand. Still verify the platform independently.
3. C) Through an unsolicited message, email, or call I did not initiate High risk. Unsolicited contact is the defining recruitment method of boiler room fraud, clone firm operations, and investment scams. Legitimate brokers do not cold-contact potential clients. Treat any opportunity that found you as a significant red flag until full independent verification is complete.
4. D) Through independent research I conducted myself using regulatory registers and review platforms Lower risk. Self-directed discovery through independent research is the safest recruitment pathway. The risk is not zero — fraudulent platforms do appear in organic search results and review platforms — but this starting point combined with thorough verification is the most defensible position.

 

Q2. Has the platform or adviser ever guaranteed a specific return, promised risk-free profits, or claimed your investment cannot lose money?

1. A) Yes — specific percentage returns were guaranteed or strongly implied High risk. No legitimate regulated investment firm can guarantee returns. Guaranteed return promises are explicitly prohibited by every major financial regulator and are among the most reliable indicators of a fraudulent operation. If this has been communicated to you in writing, preserve it — it is evidence.
2. B) They described potential returns but were clear these were not guaranteed Lower risk. Appropriate risk disclosure — acknowledging that past performance is not a guide to future results and that capital is at risk — is a standard regulatory requirement for legitimate firms. This does not confirm legitimacy, but it is consistent with regulated conduct.
3. C) The returns mentioned seemed unusually high compared to mainstream investment products Elevated risk. Significantly above-market returns are a structural feature of investment fraud. Fraudulent platforms need to promise more than the market offers to overcome victims’ natural scepticism. If the returns seem too good to be true relative to what a major bank, fund, or regulated broker offers, apply heightened scrutiny.
4. D) No specific return figures were ever mentioned The absence of return promises is not itself a positive signal — it simply removes one specific red flag. Full independent verification remains necessary.

 

Q3. Have you attempted to withdraw funds from the platform, and what happened?

1. A) I have not tried to withdraw yet Action required. If you have funds on any platform you have not yet attempted to withdraw, make a small test withdrawal immediately. The withdrawal experience is the most reliable indicator of a platform’s legitimacy. Fraudulent platforms consistently fail at this stage.
2. B) My withdrawal was processed normally within the stated timeframe Positive signal. Successful withdrawals — particularly multiple successful withdrawals over time — are one of the strongest available indicators of a legitimate operation. This does not guarantee future withdrawals will succeed, but it is meaningful evidence.
3. C) My withdrawal was delayed, required additional documentation, or I was asked to pay a fee before it could be processed High risk. Withdrawal obstruction is the defining characteristic of fraudulent investment platforms. Demands for fees, taxes, compliance charges, or additional deposits before a withdrawal can be “released” have no legitimate basis. Stop all deposits immediately and seek specialist advice.
4. D) My account was restricted or suspended after I requested a withdrawal Critical risk. Account suspension following a withdrawal request is a near-definitive indicator of a fraudulent operation. Preserve all evidence, cease all further deposits, and engage specialist legal support immediately.

 

Part 2: Crypto Platform Fraud Risk

Q4. Have you verified the crypto platform’s regulatory status on an official government register?

1. A) Yes — I searched the FCA, ASIC, MAS, or equivalent register and confirmed the licence Lower risk. Direct regulatory verification is the correct starting point. Confirm that the authorised website URL on the register matches the platform you are using exactly — not just the brand name.
2. B) I checked the platform’s own website and it displays regulatory logos Elevated risk. Regulatory logos displayed on a website are images. They confirm nothing about actual authorisation. Any fraudulent platform can download and display the FCA, ASIC, or CySEC logo in seconds. The only meaningful verification is a direct search on the regulator’s official register.
3. C) I have not checked — I assumed it was regulated because it appeared professional High risk. Website professionalism is the primary trust signal that fraudulent crypto platforms invest in. A professional interface, live price charts, and a well-written terms of service cost very little to produce and are present on thousands of unregulated fraudulent platforms. Verify the platform’s regulatory status before any further deposit.
4. D) The platform told me it is not regulated but that this is normal for crypto High risk. While the crypto regulatory landscape is uneven, an unregulated platform in a jurisdiction with an established crypto licensing framework (UK, EU under MiCA, Australia, Singapore) is operating outside the law. The claim that being unregulated is “normal” is a deflection, not an explanation.

 

Q5. Were you required to connect your personal crypto wallet to the platform or sign a transaction to “activate” your account?

1. A) Yes — I connected my wallet and signed what was described as a verification or activation transaction Critical risk. This is the defining characteristic of a wallet drainer attack — a fraudulent smart contract that, once approved, grants the platform unlimited access to drain your wallet. If you have signed such a transaction, revoke the approval immediately using a tool such as revoke.cash and move your remaining assets to a new wallet address. Seek specialist advice on any losses already incurred.
2. B) No — the platform only requires me to send funds to a specified deposit address Lower risk on this specific point. A deposit address model does not involve granting wallet access. However, it does not reduce the need for full platform verification through other means.
3. C) I am not sure what I signed — there were several steps during account setup Elevated risk. If you are uncertain about what you approved during account setup, check your wallet’s transaction history and review any active approvals using a blockchain explorer or token approval checker. Unknown approvals should be revoked as a precaution.

 

Q6. Has anyone introduced you to a crypto investment platform after meeting you on a dating app, social media, or messaging platform?

1. A) Yes — someone I met online introduced me to a platform they said was generating significant returns Critical risk. This is the defining recruitment pattern of pig butchering fraud — one of the most financially devastating scam types globally. The relationship was engineered specifically to introduce the investment platform. Any funds sent to that platform are almost certainly lost unless legal action is initiated promptly. Preserve all communications and seek specialist advice immediately.
2. B) A friend or family member I know in real life mentioned a platform they use Lower risk. Real-world connections reduce but do not eliminate risk. Verify the platform independently regardless of who introduced it.
3. C) No one introduced me — I found the platform through my own research Lower risk on this specific vector. Other fraud risks remain — verify the platform independently through the regulatory and technical checks described in Part 2.

 

Part 3: Romance and Pig Butchering Scam Risk

Q7. Are you currently in an online relationship with someone you have never met in person, who has mentioned investment opportunities or financial matters?

1. A) Yes — we have discussed investments and they have shown me their own trading profits Critical risk. This is a textbook pig butchering script: establish emotional intimacy, demonstrate fabricated trading profits, and guide the victim to a fraudulent platform. The “profits” shown are screenshots of a controlled interface — they are not real. Do not send any further funds, preserve all communications, and seek advice before making any decisions about the relationship or the investment.
2. B) Yes — we are in an online relationship but finance has never come up Monitor carefully. The absence of financial discussion does not indicate safety — pig butchering scams involve weeks or months of relationship development before the investment topic is introduced. Be alert to any future introduction of financial topics, investment platforms, or requests for money in any form.
3. C) No — I have not met anyone online recently Lower risk on this specific vector. Other fraud risk factors remain relevant from other sections of this quiz.

 

Q8. Has an online contact ever discouraged you from discussing an investment with family members, financial advisers, or other trusted people?

1. A) Yes — they said family or advisers “wouldn’t understand” or might cause me to miss the opportunity Critical risk. Discouraging external consultation is a deliberate isolation tactic used in romance fraud, pig butchering scams, and investment fraud. Legitimate investment opportunities do not require secrecy. The specific framing — “they won’t understand,” “this opportunity won’t last,” “your adviser is too conservative” — is scripted. Secrecy demands are among the strongest available indicators of fraud.
2. B) No — they have always encouraged me to do my own research and consult others Positive signal. Encouraging independent verification and external consultation is consistent with a legitimate relationship and a legitimate opportunity. It does not eliminate other risks, but it removes this specific red flag.
3. C) The topic has never come up The absence of this specific tactic does not confirm safety — evaluate using all sections of this quiz.

 

Part 4: Supplier and B2B Fraud Risk

Q9. When your company receives a payment instruction from a supplier — including bank account details — what is your verification process?

1. A) We verify the bank details by calling the supplier on a phone number from our own records before making payment Lower risk. Independent verbal verification of payment details is the single most effective control against business email compromise targeting supplier payments. Calling a number from the original onboarding file — not from the email containing the payment instruction — confirms you are speaking to the genuine supplier.
2. B) We process payment based on the details in the invoice or email, without a separate verification call High risk. This is the exact vulnerability that business email compromise exploits. Criminals intercept or spoof legitimate supplier email accounts, substitute fraudulent bank details, and receive payments intended for genuine suppliers. Implement verbal verification for all first payments and any change of account details immediately.
3. C) We have a dual-authorisation process requiring two people to approve payments above a threshold Lower risk — but incomplete without verbal verification. Dual authorisation prevents insider fraud and unauthorised payments but does not protect against BEC fraud where both authorisers are working from the same fraudulent payment instruction. Combine dual authorisation with independent verbal verification for complete protection.
4. D) We have no formal verification process — payments are processed by whoever handles invoices High risk. The absence of formal payment verification controls is a significant operational vulnerability. A single fraudulent payment instruction, processed without verification, can result in losses that are extremely difficult to recover. Implement verbal verification and dual-authorisation controls as an immediate priority.

 

Q10. Before engaging a new supplier for a significant contract, does your business verify their company registration, financial health, and beneficial ownership?

1. A) Yes — we conduct formal due diligence including registry checks, financial review, and sanctions screening Lower risk. Structured pre-engagement due diligence is the foundation of supplier fraud prevention. The company verification and supplier verification frameworks published by Veritas Advisory Group provide a complete checklist for this process.
2. B) We check their website and ask for references, but do not search official registries Elevated risk. Website verification and references are necessary but insufficient. A fraudulent supplier will have a professional website and fabricated references. Official registry verification — confirming legal existence, director histories, and financial health — is the layer that exposes ghost companies and high-risk entities that pass surface checks.
3. C) We rely on the relationship and do not conduct formal checks High risk. Relationship-based trust without formal verification is the primary vulnerability exploited in ghost supplier fraud and advance fee schemes. The strength of a relationship does not substitute for documented due diligence — and in cases of significant loss, its absence weakens any subsequent legal claim.

 

Part 5: Property Fraud Risk

Q11. If you are purchasing or have purchased property in Europe, how was your legal representative selected?

1. A) I sourced an independent lawyer myself, verified through the national bar association register Lower risk. Independent legal representation — sourced without involvement from the developer, agent, or seller — is the most important single protection in a European property transaction. Bar association verification confirms the lawyer is legitimately registered and carries professional obligations.
2. B) The developer or agent recommended my lawyer and I used their recommendation High risk. A lawyer introduced exclusively by the developer or agent has a potential conflict of interest that may not be disclosed. In documented property fraud cases, agent-recommended lawyers have actively facilitated transactions that destroyed buyers’ legal interests. Always source independent legal representation through the national bar association register of the relevant country.
3. C) I have not yet engaged a lawyer — I am managing the transaction directly Critical risk. Conducting a European property transaction without independent legal representation — particularly as an overseas buyer — exposes you to title fraud, undisclosed encumbrances, developer insolvency risk, and contractual terms that are unenforceable or disadvantageous. Independent legal representation is not optional in this context.

 

Q12. For an off-plan or pre-construction property purchase in Europe, have you verified that a bank guarantee or equivalent deposit protection is in place?

1. A) Yes — I have confirmed the guarantee with the issuing bank directly and hold documentation Lower risk. A valid, confirmed bank guarantee — verified with the issuing institution independently, not just accepted from the developer — provides meaningful protection against developer insolvency or non-completion. Ensure the guarantee is specific to your contract and the development.
2. B) The developer told me a guarantee exists but I have not verified it independently Elevated risk. Developer assurances about guarantee existence are not the same as a verified guarantee. Fraudulent and financially distressed developers frequently misrepresent or fabricate deposit protection. Contact the issuing bank directly using independently sourced contact details to confirm validity.
3. C) No guarantee was mentioned and I paid the deposit without one High risk. Paying a deposit for off-plan property without verified deposit protection leaves you entirely exposed to developer insolvency, non-completion, or fraud. Seek independent legal advice immediately on what contractual protections may exist and what remedies are available if the developer fails to deliver.
4. D) The property is already built and completed — this question does not apply Not applicable for off-plan risk. Review the other property fraud questions and the title and legal representation items above.

 

How to Use Your Results

This quiz is not a scoring system — it is a diagnostic tool. Each answer provides specific, actionable feedback on a real vulnerability or a genuine protection. The value is in the pattern across your answers, not a single result. If you answered in the high-risk or critical-risk categories on multiple questions in the same section: You are operating with significant exposure in that fraud category. The appropriate response is to take the specific actions indicated in the feedback for each answer before any further financial commitment is made. If you answered in the lower-risk categories consistently: Your current behaviours and processes reflect sound fraud awareness. The risk is never zero — fraud operations evolve continuously — but you have the foundational protections in place. If you recognised a current or recent situation in the critical-risk answers: Act immediately. Preserve all evidence, stop all further payments, and seek specialist legal and advisory support. The sooner action is taken after fraud is identified, the greater the range of recovery options available.  

If You Suspect You Have Already Been Defrauded

Recognising fraud after the fact is not a failure — it is the starting point for every available recovery mechanism. The actions that follow recognition are what determine the outcome. Contact your bank immediately for payment recall options. Preserve every communication, document, and transaction record before anything else. Do not alert the fraudulent party to your findings. File formal reports with your national financial regulator and police. And engage specialist legal support — particularly where the fraud involves European financial infrastructure, corporate entities, or banking connections.