PROJECT: THE VICTIM'S ACCOUNT - KIDNAPPING CLAIMS, FINANCIAL TRANSFERS AND SERIOUS RED FLAGS (PART 2)
- 5 hours ago
- 8 min read
PLEASE SHARE THIS PUBLIC DOCUMENT
WHEN BELIEF CONFLICTS WITH THE EVIDENCE
Victims of sweetheart scams often continue believing the perpetrator despite mounting evidence because the scam is built on emotional attachment, trust, hope and psychological manipulation.
By the time financial demands begin, the victim may already be deeply invested in the relationship.
Fear of losing the relationship, admitting they have been deceived, or accepting the financial consequences
can cause victims to reject evidence that contradicts what they desperately want to believe.
This is why family and friends may struggle to understand the victim’s continued belief in the scammer.
Please read our initial project:
Then follow the unfolding of this shocking manipulation and the subsequent process
undertaken by the SSS Specialist Investigator to unravel the case.
CONVERSATION BETWEEN VICTIM AND SSS INVESTIGATOR:
V: The kidnappers took his passport. I only know his date of birth: 8 October 1964. I am sorry.
I helped Frank financially because his account was dormant. His account was activated, and he transferred some of his funds from his account to my bank account.
I am registered online. If he were a criminal, he would not have transferred funds from his account to mine, would he?
He worked for the United Nations; see his email address.
I will send you an email from the place where he previously worked. They will have all his information.
I know with all my heart that he is not a scammer. 🙏
SSS Investigator: When was he kidnapped?
Can I have the SAPS case number and the details of the investigating officer?
V: On 18 August last year. I will send you the information I posted on Facebook because they did not want to help me.
SSS Investigator: So there is no police case?
V: I did receive a number. I will send it to you.
The reason I cannot access the money is because Frank's bank account was dormant, and the bank first has to approve it and obtain his fingerprint.
I am only looking for the alleged case number. I wrote it down somewhere.
SSS Investigator: If it were your account, you would be able to access and withdraw the money at any time. Why would you have to pay money to withdraw your own money?
V: I am neither a citizen nor a resident, and the funds I had to pay were for my IMF code. I am also registered online.
SSS Investigator: Please read all of Mr. Mike Bolhuis's sweetheart scam projects.
V: I am going to prove you wrong, but thank you.
SSS Investigator: We can do a missing person project, but that is all that can happen at this stage. I need the SAPS reference.
V: Why would he tell me that the criminals are driving a grey Jeep and are in Mokopane?
He is genuinely legitimate. I know this with my whole life. 🙏
18 August is the day on which we made contact. Sorry, I confused the dates. I am in such a state. I am sorry about that. It was July when he was kidnapped.
SSS Investigator: Where did you get the photograph?
V: He was only able to send it to me now.
SSS Investigator: Please just stop paying money.
V: I am not paying anything more because they were supposed to drop him off in Bela-Bela, where I was going to collect him. They are still in Mokopane.
The case number is 2625/25, if I remember correctly. I was also very angry that day. I wrote it down somewhere.
SSS Investigator: Is that an OB number?
V: No. The woman merely wrote a brief summary in her black book. They were too lazy to open a proper case.
SSS Investigator: No case could be opened because the information was insufficient. There was also no person who had last seen him, and there was no evidence that a crime had been committed.
V: All I can tell you today is that Frank is not a scammer.
SSS ASSESSMENT: WHAT CAN BE DEDUCED FROM THIS CONVERSATION
The conversation raises multiple serious inconsistencies and indicators commonly associated with a potential sweetheart or romance scam.
The information does not, by itself, constitute proof that “Frank” is a scammer, but the victim's account requires independent verification.
1. THE ALLEGED KIDNAPPING DATE CHANGED:
The victim initially stated that the alleged kidnapping occurred on 18 August.
She later corrected herself and stated that 18 August was the date on which she and the SSS Investigative Officer made contact, and that the alleged kidnapping had actually occurred in July.
The victim explained that she was confused and in a distressed state.
This must be taken into account. However, the exact date of an alleged kidnapping is a critical investigative fact and requires verification.
2. THERE WAS NO CONFIRMED SAPS CASE:
The victim initially referred to a number, later recalled as 2625/25, but subsequently explained that it was not an official case or OB number.
According to her, a SAPS member merely wrote a brief summary in a black book.
There was therefore no confirmed SAPS criminal case number available to SSS at the time of the conversation.
This created a significant investigative obstacle.
Without a confirmed SAPS case, investigating officer, OB reference, complainant statement or independently verifiable evidence, SSS could not treat the kidnapping allegation as an established fact.
3. NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE OF THE ALLEGED KIDNAPPING WAS AVAILABLE:
According to the discussion, there was no confirmed:
SAPS case;
investigating officer;
verified eyewitness who saw Frank being abducted;
confirmed last sighting;
independent evidence that a kidnapping had occurred; or
other objective evidence linking the alleged victim to the claimed crime.
The victim's belief that Frank had been kidnapped therefore appears, at this stage, to have been based primarily on information communicated to her by Frank and those claiming to be involved.
4. THE VICTIM APPEARED TO BELIEVE FRANK DESPITE CONTRARY INDICATORS
The victim repeatedly stated:
“I know with all my heart that he is not a scammer.”
“He is genuinely legitimate.”
“I am going to prove you wrong.”
“All I can tell you today is that Frank is not a scammer.”
These statements are important because they indicate that, despite significant financial losses and repeated warnings, the victim remained strongly convinced of Frank's legitimacy.
This level of emotional commitment can make it extremely difficult for a victim to objectively assess new information.
5. THE VICTIM USED A MONEY TRANSFER AS PROOF THAT FRANK WAS GENUINE:
The victim reasoned that Frank could not be a scammer because he had allegedly transferred money from his account into hers.
However, a transfer of money does not, on its own, verify a person's identity, employment, bank account ownership or intentions. Any such transfer must be independently traced and verified.
The critical questions would include:
From whose account did the money actually originate?
What was the source of the funds?
Was the account genuinely controlled by Frank?
Was the money legitimately available?
Was the transfer temporary or part of a larger financial manipulation?
Was the victim subsequently required to pay more money to access, release or transfer the funds?
A transaction that appears to prove legitimacy may itself form part of the deception.
6. THE “DORMANT ACCOUNT” EXPLANATION REQUIRES INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION:
The victim was told that Frank's bank account had been dormant and that access to the funds required further action, including a fingerprint and other processes.
She was also told that she needed to make payments relating to her “IMF code”.
These explanations are significant warning signs because scammers frequently use complicated banking procedures, regulatory terminology and supposed administrative fees to explain why large sums of money cannot be released.
Any genuine bank arrangement must be verified directly with the financial institution using independently sourced contact details.
7. THE VICTIM WAS BEING TOLD WHERE THE ALLEGED KIDNAPPERS WERE:
The victim stated that Frank told her the criminals were driving a grey Jeep and were in Mokopane.
This raises an obvious question: How was Frank able to obtain and communicate such specific information about his alleged kidnappers while supposedly being held captive?
His ability to send information, including a photograph, requires careful examination.
It does not prove that the kidnapping was false, but it creates a significant factual question requiring investigation.
8. THE PROMISED RELEASE DID NOT MATERIALISE:
The victim stated that the alleged kidnappers were supposed to release Frank in Bela-Bela, where she was going to collect him.
According to her, this did not happen, and she was later told that the kidnappers were still in Mokopane.
This apparent change in the alleged circumstances should be carefully examined, particularly where previous money had already allegedly been paid in connection with the kidnappers.
9. THE VICTIM WAS WARNED TO STOP PAYING MONEY:
The SSS Investigator gave the victim a direct warning: “Please just stop paying money.”
This was an important intervention.
The correct priority was to prevent further financial loss while the circumstances were being investigated.
OVERALL DEDUCTION:
The available conversation presents a pattern of serious red flags rather than independently verified proof of a kidnapping.
The most significant concerns are:
The alleged kidnapping date changed.
No confirmed SAPS case or OB number was available.
No independent evidence of the kidnapping was presented.
The victim had already transferred substantial amounts of money.
The alleged financial arrangements were complicated and repeatedly required additional explanations.
The victim believed that money was inaccessible in an account.
She reportedly had to pay money to obtain access to funds.
The alleged kidnapping was linked to further financial demands.
The alleged victim could continue communicating and provide specific information while supposedly being held captive.
The victim remained strongly emotionally convinced that the man was genuine despite repeated warnings.
In SSS's assessment, these circumstances justify serious concern that the victim may have been manipulated
as part of a sophisticated sweetheart scam.
The case must therefore be approached on the basis of evidence, not belief.
The most urgent recommendation is that no further money should be transferred and that all available evidence,
including the Facebook profile, messages, emails, photographs, bank records, proof of payments and contact details,
should be preserved for investigation.
Specialised Security Services invites the public to the Mike Bolhuis Daily Projects WhatsApp Channel.
This channel is important in delivering insights into the latest crime trends, awareness, warnings and the exposure of criminals.
How to Join the WhatsApp Channel:
1. Make sure you have the latest version of WhatsApp on your device.
2. Click on the link below to join the Mike Bolhuis Daily Projects WhatsApp Channel:
3. Follow the prompts to join the channel.
4. Make sure you click on "Follow", then click on the "bell"-icon (🔔)
CONTACT MR MIKE BOLHUIS FOR SAFETY AND SECURITY MEASURES, PROTECTION, OR AN INVESTIGATION IF NEEDED.
ALL INFORMATION RECEIVED WILL BE TREATED IN THE STRICTEST CONFIDENTIALITY AND EVERY IDENTITY WILL BE PROTECTED.
Regards,
Mike Bolhuis
Specialist Investigators into
Serious Violent, Serious Economic Crimes & Serious Cybercrimes
PSIRA Reg. 1590364/421949
Mobile: +27 82 447 6116
E-mail: mike@mikebolhuis.co.za
Fax: 086 585 4924
Follow us on Facebook to view our projects -
EXTREMELY IMPORTANT: All potential clients need to be aware that owing to the nature of our work as specialist investigators there are people who have been caught on the wrong side of the law - who are trying to discredit me - Mike Bolhuis and my organisation Specialised Security Services - to get themselves off the hook. This retaliation happens on social media and creates doubt about our integrity and ability. Doubt created on social media platforms is both unwarranted and untrue. We strongly recommend that you make up your minds concerning me and our organisation only after considering all the factual information - to the exclusion of hearsay and assumptions. Furthermore, you are welcome to address your concerns directly with me should you still be unsatisfied with your conclusions. While the internet provides a lot of valuable information, it is also a platform that distributes a lot of false information. The distribution of false information, fake news, slander and hate speech constitutes a crime that can be prosecuted by law. Your own research discretion and discernment are imperative when choosing what and what not to believe.
STANDARD RULES APPLY: Upon appointment, we require a formal mandate with detailed instructions. Please take note that should you not make use of our services – you may not under any circumstance use my name or the name of my organisation as a means to achieve whatever end.
POPI ACT 4 of 2013 South Africa: Mike Bolhuis' "Specialised Security Services" falls under Section 6 of the act. Read more here: https://mikebh.link/fntdpv
SSS TASK TEAM:
Copyright © 2015- PRESENT | Mike Bolhuis Specialised Security Services | All rights reserved.
Our mailing address is:
Mike Bolhuis Specialised Security Services
PO Box 15075 Lynn East
Pretoria, Gauteng 0039
South Africa
Add us to your address book
THIS PUBLIC DOCUMENT WAS INTENDED TO BE SHARED, PLEASE DO SO.
