We had recently a run-in with scammers and we consider us as lucky not to have been trapped.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although we scrutinize our emails very closely and we have an important experience in recognizing spams, we recently received a message form a certain \u201cEnglish Company\u201d asking for our legal assistance in collecting the balance due on an agreement allegedly concluded with a Lausanne based company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This message looked serious. The \u201cLausanne Company\u201d was existing and even well-known. The explanations were logical. We therefore decided to initiate our normal procedure for opening a relationship with a new client: signing an Engagement Letter and asking for a retainer based on what we thought the case would need in terms of work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But to our great surprise, even before the \u201cEnglish Company\u201d returned these documents signed, we received by normal mail a cheque from the \u201cLausanne Company\u201d amounting to about one half of the claim, asking us to cash it and consider it as an advance payment for the total to come. This surprised us as it would have been much easier and safer for this company to pay directly our so-called \u201cNew Client\u201d without using our services to do so. Nevertheless, this \u201cNew Client\u201d came to the opinion that this way of doing was a very good idea\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In order to be allowed to execute the wish of our \u201cNew Client\u201d, we had to open what is called under Swiss laws as an \u201cAnti-Money Laundering File\u201d, i.e. asking the \u201cEnglish Company\/the so-called New Client\u201d to fill in a special form providing explanations regarding its legal existence (extract of the company register), its business, its directors and the circumstances of the case. We also asked our bank to double-check the cheque. To our surprise, the bank very swiftly confirmed that the cheque was not counterfeit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
After some days, the \u201cEnglish company\u201d replied that no company register exists under English laws (which we knew is wrong) and that it was \u201cvery difficult\u201d to sign these documents for obscure internal administrative reasons. This further raised our suspicion and we asked our correspondents in England to provide us with their opinion as to this reaction. They disclosed us that they thought all this was a scam.<\/p>\n\n\n\n