Who is making the offer?
Compare names, domains, business registrations and contact details. A registered company can exist while the person contacting you has no connection to it.
Pat Mazza / Scam investigations
When an offer, an identity or a payment raises questions, a careful review can help you see what is supported, what conflicts and what still needs an answer.
Scam enquiries often begin with a change in the story: a withdrawal that suddenly requires another fee, a supplier whose invoice names a different company, or a relationship that comes with growing financial pressure.
Pat Mazza’s scam investigation approach starts with the available record. Who made the representation? Which person or business received the payment? What was promised, and when? Those are specific questions that can guide research without treating suspicion as proof.
The work is directed toward understanding the facts and supporting an informed decision. It does not promise the recovery of funds, a prosecution or a particular outcome.

What a research scope may examine
Compare names, domains, business registrations and contact details. A registered company can exist while the person contacting you has no connection to it.
Build a chronology of the messages, terms, invoices and changes in explanation. Keep original records separate from notes and interpretations.
Record payment dates, references and recipients from material you lawfully hold. Distinguish a documented connection from an assumed identity.
Retain messages, invoices, agreements and transaction references you already hold. Note the full source addresses and relevant dates. A short chronology is more useful than a large folder with no explanation of how the pieces fit.
Avoid sharing passwords, authentication codes or account access. For an initial discussion, describe the records you have; agree an appropriate way to exchange sensitive material separately.
The US Federal Trade Commission advises people who have paid a suspected scammer to contact the company used to send the payment and ask whether it can be reversed. Its guidance also covers compromised personal information and device access. Read the FTC’s steps after a scam.
Cyber-enabled crime can be reported to the FBI’s Internet Crime Complaint Center. Reporting is separate from a private investigation enquiry and should not be delayed while preparing one. Visit the official IC3 website. Outside the US, use the relevant financial institution and official reporting authorities in your jurisdiction.
A source-indexed report can explain what the accessible evidence supports and where further information is needed. It cannot guarantee that a payment will be returned or that an authority will open a case. Public records may be incomplete, outdated or difficult to connect to the correct person.
The FTC also warns about recovery scams that target people who have already lost money. Treat guarantees and unexpected requests for recovery payments with care. Read the FTC’s recovery-scam guidance.
US and worldwide enquiries require a defined scope. The people involved, location of records and proposed methods determine whether local professional support or permissions are needed.
A short description of the concern, the relevant countries or states, key dates and a list of records you hold. Explain what a clearer answer would help you decide.
No. Research can clarify identities, records and the sequence of events. Payment recovery and law-enforcement decisions are separate matters, and no outcome is guaranteed.
Yes, an enquiry can involve US and worldwide records or parties. The available sources and professional requirements must be assessed for each relevant jurisdiction.
No. The case-brief worksheet creates a draft in your browser for you to copy or download. It does not submit information or contact Pat Mazza.
Guide reviewed October 21, 2026. Official resources are linked above.