Potential Advance‑Fee Risk: My Experience With “Guarantee Payments” and a “Purchase of Receivables” Pitch from Truly Consulting US
Below is a concise, factual blog‑style post you can publish (you can edit to add your own commentary or screenshots).
Potential Advance‑Fee Risk: My Experience With “Guarantee Payments” and a “Purchase of Receivables” Pitch
In May 2026, I was approached with what appeared to be a set of business funding offers from a company presenting itself as a lender, using the domain trulyconsultingus.com and the phone number 561‑705‑4080. The interaction is worth documenting because it combines two elements consumers and business owners should treat with extreme caution: upfront “guarantee” payments and a structure described as a “purchase of receivables” that still requires you to pay the first installment out of pocket before receiving any funds.
This post is not a legal determination about the company or individuals involved; it is a factual description of the communication I received and why it raised multiple red flags for me.
The Funding “Options” Presented
I was emailed a set of four “funding options,” supposedly available the same day once a “guarantee payment” was made and background checks were complete. The sender claimed that a full cash‑flow analysis and background check had already been done and that the offers were ready to fund immediately.
The options included:
- A bridge loan with a relatively small principal, very high total payback, and weekly payments over a short term.
- A term loan for $1.5M with a total payback of $1.74M over 60 months, with a stated monthly payment and “Guarantee Payment: Required prior to funding.”
- A mid‑term capital injection for $2.5M, with $3.25M payback over 72 months, collateral requirement, and again a guarantee payment required before funding.
- A long‑term structured capital option for $5M at 10% APR over 10 years, secured by collateral and with no guarantee payment but a much longer funding timeline and job‑site inspection requirement.
The pattern is clear: the fastest and most attractive‑sounding options (in terms of same‑day funding) required a “guarantee payment” equal to the first monthly payment, to be paid before any funds were disbursed.
The email explicitly said that for Option 2 and Option 3, the guarantee payment “will be applied directly toward your loan balance, not as an extra cost,” and that once this guarantee payment was received, funding would be released the same day. It also stated that this guarantee payment would only be required once with that bank.
The “Guarantee Payment” Question
I replied asking a very simple, practical question: if this guarantee payment was legitimate and truly applied to the loan balance, why couldn’t it just be deducted from the loan disbursement?
In a normal commercial lending or receivables‑based facility, if the lender needs an upfront fee or first payment, it is usually trivial for them to net that amount from the funds they are wiring to you. If they are really ready to send $1.5M or $2.5M, they can send $1.471M and internally record that $29,000 of the proceeds was the first payment or fee. There is no operational need for you to pay that amount out of pocket first.
Insisting that the “guarantee payment” must be sent by the borrower before funding, instead of being netted from the disbursement, shifts all the risk to the borrower and is a hallmark trait of classic advance‑fee schemes.
“Purchase of Receivables” and the First Month’s Payment
The next response from the sender reframed the structure as a “purchase of receivables.” The exact language was:
“As outlined in the agreement, the deal is structured as a purchase of receivables. This means we will need to receive the first month’s payment from your own cash flow.
Minimum is 500K.”
In other words, they were claiming that because the deal was technically a purchase of receivables (rather than a traditional loan), they needed to collect the first month’s payment from my existing cash flow before disbursing any funds, with a minimum deal size of $500,000.
In legitimate receivables‑financing or merchant cash‑advance arrangements, the funder typically advances money first and then collects their payments by taking a percentage of future receivables or scheduled debits from the business’s account. The idea that the “first month’s payment” must be paid upfront from the borrower’s own cash, before any money is advanced, effectively turns that “first payment” into an upfront fee with funding still only promised, not delivered.
Why This Structure Is Dangerous
Even if the document uses phrases like “purchase of receivables” and claims that the guarantee payment is “applied to your balance,” the practical structure matters more than the labels. Here is what this structure looks like in practice:
- The company demands a large initial payment (equal to a monthly installment) as a “guarantee” or “first payment.”
- They promise same‑day funding once this payment is received.
- The borrower is expected to send that money from their own cash flow instead of having it netted from the disbursement.
If funding is delayed, reduced, or never arrives, the borrower has already lost that initial payment. The company, meanwhile, has collected money while bearing minimal risk. That is exactly how advance‑fee victims end up out of pocket with nothing to show for it.
Whether this particular company ultimately funds borrowers or not, the risk is asymmetric: the borrower is the one sending real money first, while the lender’s “promise to fund” is unenforceable without significant legal effort.
A Safer Response Template for Others
If you encounter similar language, you can respond with something like this:
“If this is a true purchase‑of‑receivables facility and not an advance‑fee loan, structure the first payment as a normal scheduled debit after funds are disbursed, or net it from my initial funding. I won’t pay a first month’s payment from my own cash before closing.”
Any legitimate, well‑capitalized lender or receivables buyer who actually intends to fund you should be able to accommodate that request, or at least clearly explain in writing why they cannot. If they refuse and insist on upfront payment from your own funds, you should consider walking away.
Key Takeaways for Business Owners
- Upfront “guarantee” or “first payment” demands are a major red flag. If the lender is confident they will fund, they can deduct that amount from your disbursement.
- Labels don’t change the risk. Calling it a “purchase of receivables” does not eliminate the fact that you are being asked to send money before receiving any.
- Don’t be rushed. Scammers and high‑risk operators rely on urgency, large numbers, and the promise of same‑day or next‑day funding.
- Document everything. Keep all emails, texts, and call records. If something feels off, having a written trail helps you analyze it and, if necessary, report it.
- When in doubt, walk away. There are many legitimate banks and lenders who will not ask you to wire or pay a “guarantee” or “first month’s payment” before you see a single dollar.
