Fake Experience Letter Detection — Catch Forged Proof
A fabricated experience letter looks identical to a real one — until you read the file structure. Talent ops teams, BGV operators, and visa sponsors all face the same pattern: a candidate cannot prove four years at a previous employer, so they author a letter in Microsoft Word, sign it themselves, export to PDF, upload. Visual review passes. Structural analysis does 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 fabricated or tampered experience letter, we’re the most specific tool for it.
When HTPBE? returns INCONCLUSIVE on an experience letter, that’s the expected baseline (these documents legitimately come from desktop tools at small employers); 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 experience letters actually look
Three real fraud mechanics we catch at the structural PDF layer.
Letter authored in Microsoft Word from scratch
No previous employer involved. The candidate writes the letter in Word using the company’s logo lifted from LinkedIn, signs the HR Manager’s name, exports to PDF. The producer field shows Microsoft Word — not the document management system or CRM authentic letters come from.
Real letter with edited dates or salary
An applicant has a genuine letter from a brief stint, but the dates or compensation don’t support the role they’re applying for. They open the PDF in Adobe Acrobat or an online editor, change the dates from "Jan 2022 — Aug 2022" to "Jan 2020 — Aug 2024", re-export. Incremental update markers expose the edit.
Signature lifted and pasted
A signature image cropped from another document and pasted onto a fabricated letter. Image-layer artefacts (mismatched compression, misaligned baseline, redundant object streams) flag the substitution.
The scale
Why your existing checks miss this
BGV calls the employer. It does not inspect the file.
Both layers matter. The employer call only works if they pick up.
BGV platforms (AuthBridge, IDfy, OnGrid, Springworks) call the previous employer to confirm employment dates and role. This works when the employer responds — but Indian BGV failure rates on previous-employment fraud detection routinely run 15–30% (employer non-response, defunct companies, HR-team turnover). When fraud detection cannot be completed, candidates fill the gap with a letter. HTPBE? catches the file the candidate sent, regardless of whether the previous employer responds. Use both: BGV for the fact when reachable, HTPBE? for the file always.
What HTPBE? checks
Detection capabilities
Deterministic structural signals. No probabilistic scores, no model training.
Producer signature on the letter
Authentic experience letters come from the previous employer’s document workflow — typically a payroll engine, HRMS export, or DocuSign workflow. When the producer field shows Microsoft Word, LibreOffice, Google Docs, or Chrome Headless, the letter was authored on a desktop and exported by hand.
Letterhead consistency
Real corporate letterheads are embedded as part of the template’s font and image objects. Lifted-and-pasted logos appear as redundant image streams with mismatched compression — a structural fingerprint of fabrication.
Digital signature presence and chain
Many large employers digitally sign experience letters via DocuSign, Adobe Sign, or HelloSign. Authentic letters carry a valid signature chain. Fabricated letters either lack signatures entirely or have invalidated chains.
Incremental update trail
A clean export from a corporate document system has one xref table. Hand-edited letters have two or more — visible structural evidence of post-issuance editing.
Image-layer artefacts in pasted signatures
Signatures dropped in from external sources have different JPEG/PNG compression characteristics than the rest of the document. The image stream metadata exposes the paste.
Modification timestamp gap
Real letters have ModDate equal or near CreationDate. Hand-edited letters show gaps of days or weeks between creation and modification.
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
$15/mo
30 checks/mo
Manual spot-checks and integration testing
most commonGrowth
$149/mo
350 checks/mo
Active document processing pipelines
high volumePro
$499/mo
1,500 checks/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
What about letters from genuinely small employers who use Word for everything?
inconclusive — a prompt for manual employer fraud detection rather than an automatic reject.How is this different from BGV employment fraud detection?
Can it catch backdated letters where the dates were edited?
modified with the incremental-update marker — and your reviewer can see the file was changed after issuance.What if the candidate provides a photo of a printed letter instead of the PDF?
What does an INCONCLUSIVE verdict mean for an experience letter?
Secure your workflow
Create your account — API key on signup, free test environment on every plan.
From $15/mo. No sales call. Cancel any time.