Every scam supplies proof. The question is never whether proof was offered but whether the proof came from a source the operator does not control, and what it would have cost them to fabricate.
| Evidence | Cost to fake | Weight |
|---|---|---|
| Professional website | Hours, minimal cost | None |
| Profit screenshots | Minutes | None |
| Testimonials and group chats | Trivial | None |
| A licence number that exists | Zero — copy a real one | None by itself |
| Entity name matching the licence record | High — requires actually being that entity | Substantial |
| Domain registered years ago with matching registrant | High — requires foresight | Substantial |
| Absence of regulator warnings | Cannot be faked | Substantial |
Deepfake endorsements now appear routinely — public figures apparently endorsing a platform in convincing video. The correct response is not to analyse the video but to check whether the person has ever mentioned it through their own verified channels. Verification comes from the primary source, not from the artefact.
Common belief
"They are registered with a regulator, so they are approved."
What is actually true
Registration or licensing means an entity met requirements to operate. It is not approval of any product, and it does not survive the entity being impersonated. Regulators publish warning lists precisely because registration is routinely misrepresented.
Three checks, in order. Does the entity name on the licence record match who you are dealing with? How old is the domain and does its registrant correspond? Has any regulator published a warning naming it? These take minutes, and VILIQ Trust runs them for you while reporting honestly which ones it could not complete.