Asset & gift letter fraud

Fake Asset Letter Detection – Catch Tampered Mortgage PDFs

Built for fraud ops at lending, insurance & compliance teams

A gift letter is a one-page PDF that decides whether the down payment counts – and one borrowers know how to fake. Mortgage processors clear asset letters and gift letters as evidence of down-payment funds. The borrower needs the donor to confirm the money is a gift, not a loan; or the bank to confirm the balance. When the donor is reluctant – or when the balance does not actually exist – the temptation is the same: edit the letter or build one in Word with a lifted signature.

~3 sec
per document
63 checks
forensic layers
1,500+
docs / month on Growth
Plans
subscriptions or one-off packs – see pricing
Scope

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 asset / gift letter, we’re the most specific tool for it.

When HTPBE? returns INCONCLUSIVE on an asset or gift letter, that’s the expected baseline for this document type; combine with other markers before flagging.

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 asset / gift letters actually look

Three real fraud mechanics we catch at the structural PDF layer.

01

Real letter edited after issuance

A genuine asset letter was issued by the bank or signed by the donor. Borrower opens it in any PDF editor, edits the balance figure or the relationship-to-borrower line, exports as PDF. HTPBE? flags the edit made after issuance.

02

Letter authored from scratch with lifted signature

No real letter exists. Borrower builds one in Word using bank letterhead lifted from a public source, pastes a signature image lifted from another document or social media, exports as PDF. The pasted signature image can show signs of having been edited and re-saved before it was placed.

03

Same signature reused across ‘different’ donor letters

Multiple gift letters from supposedly different donors carry visually identical signatures – the signature image was recycled from one letter to the next and pasted in each time.

The scale

$11B+
in annual mortgage application fraud exposure (US)
~3 sec
per asset / gift letter via API
No bank API
no bank-side or donor consent required – works on the file

Why your existing checks miss this

VOD calls the bank. The donor letter has no bank to call.

Both layers matter. The PDF the borrower uploaded is what your underwriter signs off.

Deposit-confirmation (VOD) services call the bank to confirm the balance – useful for asset letters but not for gift letters from individual donors. Day 1 Certainty asset checks (Account Aggregation) require the borrower to connect the account; borrowers who fabricated the balance rarely consent. Manually checking with the donor is rare and slow. HTPBE? catches the asset / gift letter PDF the borrower uploaded at the moment of intake – standalone, no bank-side or donor consent required.

Results in under 3 seconds30 to 1,500+ documents/month

What HTPBE? checks

Detection capabilities

Deterministic structural signals. No probabilistic scores, no model training.

Pasted-signature detection

Pasted signatures and logos can show signs of having been edited and re-saved before they were placed – a structural indicator of fabrication or signature swapping.

Post-issuance edit detection

HTPBE? detects a letter that was edited after it was issued.

Bundled donor letters

When several gift letters from ‘different’ donors arrive in one file, HTPBE? checks the file as a whole and returns its verdict and named markers. Compare the signatures across the letters before accepting the set.

Dates that disagree

HTPBE? flags a modification date that differs from the declared creation date – a high-confidence flag for post-issuance editing on a ‘freshly signed’ letter.

A Word letter isn’t an all-clear

Asset letters legitimately come from bank document systems or from desktop tools (small-bank letters often originate in Word). A letter exported directly from Word, Excel or LibreOffice, with nothing indicating later editing, comes back INCONCLUSIVE – not INTACT – and goes to manual review; MODIFIED when the file itself carries evidence of editing or fabrication.

Pages from different sources

HTPBE? detects documents assembled from pages of different sources – a structural sign of post-issuance editing.

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.

manual

Starter

30 credits/mo

Manual spot-checks and integration testing

most common

Growth

350 credits/mo

Active document processing pipelines

high volume

Pro

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

Won’t a real Word-authored asset letter from a small bank look ‘fake’ too?

Not on that alone. A genuine letter authored in Word and exported once, with nothing indicating later editing, comes back inconclusive – not intact – and should go to manual review, not be treated as proof of fraud. The verdict is modified when the file itself carries evidence of editing or fabrication, such as a lifted signature or an edit made after creation.

Does this work for Deposit-confirmation (VOD) PDFs?

Yes. A VOD that carries evidence of editing after the bank produced it comes back modified, the same as any other bank letter. One typed up in Word, Excel or LibreOffice and exported directly, with nothing indicating later editing, comes back inconclusive – not intact – however closely it copies the bank’s layout, and should go to manual review.

Can it detect a recycled donor signature across multiple gift letters?

Not as a separate result. The API returns the verdict, named markers, producer and creator fields and dates for the file – not per-signature image data. When several gift letters arrive in one file, compare the signatures across ‘different’ donors yourself before accepting them; a recycled signature is a high-confidence fraud flag.

Does this replace manually checking with the donor?

No. Manually checking with the donor – calling the donor to confirm the gift – remains the gold standard. HTPBE? inspects the file at intake, before manual review, to flag obvious tampering and prioritise which letters need the slower manual call.

What does an INCONCLUSIVE verdict mean for an asset or gift letter?

INCONCLUSIVE means HTPBE? cannot confirm the file as intact – usually because of the kind of source it came from, occasionally because the analysis could not finish; status_reason says which. For asset and gift letters, INCONCLUSIVE is the expected baseline for this document type rather than an automatic fraud signal. Combine INCONCLUSIVE with your own checks – issuer confirmation, comparison against other documents from the same source – before flagging. INCONCLUSIVE alone on an asset or gift letter is a prompt for manual review, not a red flag.

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.