Fake Super Statement Detection – Catch Edited AU Statements
A super statement balance can be edited in five minutes – and most reviewers will not notice. Property managers ask for super statements as backup income proof. Lenders use them as asset evidence. Visa applicants attach them as savings demonstrations. The fund-issued PDF is treated as authoritative, but the AustralianSuper, AwareSuper, HostPlus, REST, or Cbus original can be opened in any PDF editor, the balance bumped, and re-exported. The visual is unchanged. The file structure is not.
HTPBE? analyzes the structural layer of the PDF file – the layer that records every edit, even invisible ones. We don’t inspect holograms, phone photos, or ID biometrics. If your fraud problem is a digitally altered or fabricated super statement, we’re the most specific tool for it.
When HTPBE? returns INCONCLUSIVE on a super statement, that is a reason to escalate to manual review, not proof of fraud – it means HTPBE? cannot confirm the file as an untouched original.
The problem
Modern document fraud is invisible to visual review
A growing class of document fraud opens a genuine PDF, edits a balance, a date, or a beneficiary, and re-saves it. Visually nothing changes – the document passes pixel-level review, layout review, and KYC.
Structural PDF analysis reads the layers rendering engines never expose: revision history, object structure, signature coverage maps. That is where edits leave fingerprints they cannot wipe.
Common tampering patterns
- Modified balances or totals after export
- Swapped IBAN or beneficiary on invoices
- Post-signature edits on contracts
- Backdated issue and modification dates
- Fabricated documents from consumer PDF tools
What this looks like
How fake and tampered super statements actually look
Three real fraud mechanics we catch at the structural PDF layer.
Balance edited after fund download
Authentic super statement from the fund portal opens in any PDF editor. Balance bumped from $42,000 to $142,000. Exported as PDF. The page renders identically, but the file now shows it was reworked outside the fund’s document system – and HTPBE? flags it.
Statement fabricated in Word from a template
A template lifted from a fund’s public sample, populated with the user’s name and a desired balance, exported. However closely it copies the fund’s layout, the file does not come back INTACT: with nothing indicating later editing it returns INCONCLUSIVE and should go to manual review; with evidence of editing or fabrication, MODIFIED.
Real statement with edited contribution history
Genuine fund statement with the contribution history rewritten to show consistent employer payments where there were gaps. HTPBE? flags the edit made after the fund issued the statement.
The scale
Why your existing checks miss this
AUSfund APIs check the fund. They do not check the file.
And applicants who edited the statement rarely consent to fund-side fraud detection.
Funds operate their own portals; aggregators (Basiq, Frollo, Illion) handle Open Banking-style asset confirmation – but only when the applicant agrees to connect. Applicants who edited the file rarely do. AUSfund and ATO super lookups are not accessible to private property managers or lenders. HTPBE? catches the super statement the applicant uploaded, regardless of whether fund-side or aggregator access is available – standalone, no fund API, no ATO lookup.
What HTPBE? checks
Detection capabilities
Deterministic structural signals. No probabilistic scores, no model training.
Office-software exports aren’t cleared
A super statement saved as PDF from Word, Excel or LibreOffice does not come back INTACT, however closely it copies the fund’s layout. With no sign of later editing it returns INCONCLUSIVE for manual review; with evidence of editing or fabrication, MODIFIED.
Post-export edit detection
HTPBE? detects a fund statement edited after export – whether it was changed in a PDF editor or rebuilt in other software.
Character overlay on the original
Changing a figure on an existing statement leaves a structural trace. HTPBE? flags it without reading the page – it never looks at what the figures say.
Dates that disagree
HTPBE? flags a modification date that differs from the declared creation date – a high-confidence flag for post-export editing.
Pages from different sources
HTPBE? detects statements assembled from pages of different sources – a structural sign of post-export editing.
Pasted-element detection
Fabricated statements often carry fund logos lifted from the fund’s site. HTPBE? detects logos and headers pasted in from another document.
Share with engineering
Wire this into your intake pipeline in under a day
Two API calls – one POST to submit the PDF, one GET to retrieve the verdict. Forward this page to your engineering team; the full API reference, quotas, and copy-paste examples in cURL, JavaScript, Python, PHP, Go, and Ruby are one click away.
Pricing
Self-serve plans, no sales call
All plans include the same forensic checks. Pick the quota that matches your monthly document volume.
manualStarter
30 credits/mo
Manual spot-checks and integration testing
most commonGrowth
350 credits/mo
Active document processing pipelines
high volumePro
1,500 credits/mo
High-volume automation and API integrations
Enterprise (unlimited, on-premise available) — see full pricing
API key on signup. Free test environment on every plan. No card required.
Customer Stories
Teams that stopped document fraud
Compliance, finance, and risk teams use HTPBE? to catch manipulated PDFs before they become costly mistakes.
Caught an invoice where the total had been changed by less than a thousand dollars. Without this I would have approved it without a second look.
Sarah M.
AP Manager
United States
We had three applicants in the same week with bank statements that looked completely fine. Two of them were flagged as modified. You simply cannot see this by reading the document — it is in the file structure.
Lars V.
Risk Analyst, Online Lending
Netherlands
Salary slips were coming with altered figures. We identified two problematic files before the placement was finalised.
Priya K.
HR Operations Lead
India
Since we started checking documents this way, we stopped two applications early in the process that would have been very difficult to reverse later.
Julien R.
Fraud Analyst, Fintech
France
Some applicants were sending PDFs that looked authentic but had been edited in ways not visible to the eye. We now ask for checked originals when something is flagged. Already saved us from a few bad decisions.
Marta S.
Compliance Coordinator
Spain
One invoice was caught because there was a mismatch between the document dates and structure. That particular case would have cost us significantly.
Tariq A.
Finance Manager
United Arab Emirates
FAQ
Frequently asked questions
Does HTPBE? work with statements from any Australian super fund?
intact, however closely it copies the fund’s layout.How is this different from Basiq or Frollo asset confirmation?
Can it catch SMSF balance statements?
modified when the file carries evidence of that editing, and one typed up in Word, Excel or LibreOffice does not come back intact, however closely it copies the layout.What about scanned super statements?
inconclusive – the scanner authored a fresh PDF, so HTPBE? cannot confirm it as an untouched original. Treat inconclusive on a super statement as a prompt for manual review or a request for the original PDF download from the fund portal.What does an INCONCLUSIVE verdict mean for a super statement?
Secure your workflow
Create your account – check PDFs on the web or with an API key, both ready on signup.
No sales call. Cancel any time.