Start with the mismatch, not the name
Company impersonation schemes work because part of the story is true. The business may exist, operate in the right sector and have a credible history. The weak point is often the person approaching you: an email address that merely resembles the official domain, a phone number listed nowhere else, or payment details sent through a new channel.
Treat the company's registration and the contact's identity as two separate questions. The company's existence does not confirm that the sender represents it. Check whether the contact details, website, domain and communication pattern fit together without unexplained gaps.
Compare independent points of contact
Open the company's website independently, without following the link in the email. Compare the domain spelling, published phone numbers and usual email format. If the request concerns cargo, deferred payment or a change of bank account, get in touch through a channel you found yourself.
Look for overall consistency rather than a single perfect piece of proof. A recently created look-alike domain, a personal email address used for an official request and pressure to act quickly may be significant together. Each indicator may have an ordinary explanation on its own, so record what matches and what still needs clarification.
Hold off on committing until the identity is clear
When contact details do not match, pause the irreversible action: handing over cargo, changing payment details or extending credit. Ask for an explanation through the company's usual channels and clearly explain the reason for your decision to the colleagues responsible.
The aim is not to label every unusual contact as fraudulent. A familiar company name must not replace a check. Consistent details give you a basis for proceeding, while unresolved contradictions give you a reason to wait.
Make a safe check easy to repeat
Agree in advance who checks sensitive changes and where the result is recorded. A simple shared procedure reduces the chance that urgency, shift changes or information spread across different channels will determine the decision. When the same confirmation step is easy to repeat, careful checking becomes routine, rather than an exceptional response once suspicions have already arisen.
