Pat Mazza scam investigations:
following the digital claim.

Start with the claim, not the impression.

A suspicious offer often arrives as a small piece of a much larger story: a screenshot of a balance, a forwarded conversation, a copied profile, or a document bearing a familiar logo. Before deciding what it means, write down the exact claim you are being asked to accept. Is the sender claiming to represent a business? To hold an account? To have authority to request a payment?

Those are different questions. Keep them separate. A document may show that someone used a company name without establishing that the company sent it. A screenshot may show a number without explaining what system produced it. Clear wording gives the research a specific target.

Give each item a source line.

For material you already lawfully hold, record where it came from, when you received it, and whether it is an original item, an export, or a copy. Keep the supplied material separate from any notes, highlights, or AI-generated summaries you create while reviewing it.

A short source line might read: “Image forwarded in a message on Tuesday; original page not yet located; sender says it is an account statement.” That description preserves the distinction between the item and the sender’s explanation. It is more useful than renaming the file “proof of account” before the underlying source has been checked.

Keep the item, the explanation, and the unanswered question in separate columns.

Check the connection, not just the name.

A familiar name, genuine company website, and persuasive message can sit alongside one another without belonging to the same source. The FTC’s scam guidance recommends checking unexpected communications through a trusted contact route rather than relying on the contact details supplied in the message. Read the FTC’s guidance.

In a research note, describe the connection you still need to establish. “Does this sender actually represent this organization?” is a better question than “Does this organization exist?” The existence of a business and the authority of a particular contact are separate matters.

Do not treat a shared name as a completed identity match. Compare the details that are relevant to the claim, and record mismatches as questions to resolve. A mismatch can have several explanations; it is a reason to examine the account, not a verdict on its own.

Use AI to organize questions, with the sources beside it.

Generative AI can produce plausible content, including inaccurate information. The Canadian Centre for Cyber Security advises validating sources and exercising care with the information shared with AI tools. Its guidance also describes the use of generated content in misleading campaigns. See the Cyber Centre’s overview.

If you use an assistant to arrange an approved, non-sensitive note, keep the task narrow. Ask it to list the statements in the supplied text, identify gaps, and attach each point to the passage that supports it. Check those references yourself. An invented citation or confident paraphrase can otherwise become another unsupported item in the folder.

A useful instruction is: “Separate what this material directly shows, what the sender claims it means, and what remains unknown. Do not infer identities or add facts from memory.” This is an organizational aid. It does not authenticate the material or turn an unverified statement into a finding.

Make the unknowns visible.

Consider a hypothetical image that appears to show a payment dashboard. Beside it is a message saying that an additional payment will release a balance. You may have two items: an image and a request. Neither item, on its own, establishes who operates the platform, whether the displayed balance is real, or whether the sender has authority over it.

Write those limits plainly. Identify the original platform or document that would need checking, the contact route that has not been independently confirmed, and the specific representation being made. This example is illustrative; it is not an account of a Pat Mazza client matter or an allegation about a named business.

Choose the next step with the limits intact.

A good research note can end with a focused unanswered question. It does not have to end with a declaration that a person or transaction is safe, fraudulent, or fully understood. The conclusion should reflect the material available, including contradictions and gaps.

Be particularly cautious about unsolicited promises to recover a loss. The FTC describes recovery scams that approach people who have already lost money and ask for further payment. Read its refund and recovery scam guidance. A research service is not a guarantee that funds will be recovered.

For service information and a possible professional enquiry, return to patmazza.org. The main site describes how scope and relevant professional requirements are considered. In the US, the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center is an official route for reporting cyber-enabled crime; its website explains the reporting process. Reporting and a private research enquiry serve different purposes.