Direct answer: guaranteed returns, a platform balance that rises but cannot be independently withdrawn, a demand for another tax or release fee, and an advance-fee recovery offer are high-risk signals. Each signal still needs context, but sending more money commonly increases the loss.
1. High-return investment and fake platforms
A common sequence starts through social media, a dating application, or a group chat. Trust is built, then the victim is directed to buy crypto and send it to a designated address. A platform may display profits that do not correspond to assets the user controls. The FTC identifies guaranteed high returns and low-risk claims as characteristic investment-scam signals.
2. Blocked withdrawals and additional charges
When withdrawal is requested, the platform demands tax, risk-control, deposit, credit-score, or AML fees. Test the underlying facts: did assets reach a wallet controlled by the user, is the platform independently verifiable, and is the fee supported by a legitimate agreement and independent contact channel? Do not make a new transfer merely to prove that an account is normal.
3. Approval phishing and liquidity mining
A victim may be induced to connect a wallet and sign a token approval. FBI/IC3 has issued specific guidance on fraudulent liquidity-mining schemes. MetaMask explains that an allowance can permit a dapp to move tokens within the approved limit, and disconnecting alone does not revoke it.
4. Fake support and impersonation
Scammers impersonate exchanges, wallets, government agencies, law enforcement, or technical support, manufacture urgency, and direct funds to a supposed safe address. Verify through an independently located official website, not the phone number, link, or QR code supplied by the caller.
5. Secondary recovery scams
After a victim seeks help publicly, a supposed hacker, lawyer, or recovery team may demand advance payment. Both FTC and FBI guidance warn about recovery schemes. A responsible investigation service defines scope, evidence limits, fees, and uncertainty and does not guarantee recovery or freezing.
Verification checklist
- Are profits supported by verifiable transactions or only a platform screen?
- Is the receiving address reliably associated with the claimed entity?
- Does the party dictate a network, QR code, or personal address?
- Do new withdrawal conditions keep appearing?
- Can the company, regulator, and contact channel be independently verified?
- Is the victim pressured to keep secrets, permit remote access, or disclose a seed phrase?
Related cases
The Case Library includes a fraudulent token purchase, a liquidity-mining approval trap, and an unknown-wallet compromise showing how a platform narrative can diverge from chain facts.
Review and data scope
Data cutoff: 2 August 2026. Reviewed by the Crypto Forensics Lab Editorial Team for scam-pattern sourcing, evidence boundaries, secondary-victimization risk, and bilingual consistency. A warning sign triggers verification; it does not by itself prove that a person or platform committed a crime.