Introduction — Why Most Buyers Fail to Prove Funds (And Lose Access to Real Sellers)

In EN590, Jet A1, and SBLC-backed petroleum transactions, the #1 reason real sellers reject buyers is simple:

The buyer cannot provide a clean, verifiable, institutional Proof of Funds (POF).

Most buyers send:

• Screenshots from online banking

• Edited PDFs

• “Balance certificates” made in Excel

• Outdated bank statements

• Underfunded accounts

• Non-verifiable comfort letters

These instantly disqualify them.

Real sellers, refiners, and title holders require institutional POF instruments issued through the banking system—never through email.

This article explains:

• The 4 institutional POF instruments (RWA, BCL, MT799, Soft Bank Comfort Letter)

• How each one works

• Their legal and compliance value

• When to use each

• Which instruments sellers accept

• Which instruments NNRV recommends

• The exact banking workflow

• The biggest risks buyers face when proving funds

• A comparison table used at refinery level

This is the 2025 definitive guide.

SECTION 1 — Understanding the Context: Why POF Is Mandatory (Macro + Industry)

1.1 Why Sellers Require Proof of Funds Before POP or SPA Execution

Real sellers and terminals operate under strict compliance laws:

• AML (Anti-Money Laundering)

• CFT (Counter-Terrorist Financing)

• Basel III

• OFAC / EU Sanctions

• Trade finance risk mitigation

• Tank and vessel scheduling rules

Before releasing:

• Tank numbers

• TSR

• ATV/CPA

• SPA

• Full POP

• DTA

• DIP test authorization

…the seller MUST confirm the buyer is financially capable.

POF is not about trust.
POF is about compliance and risk control.

1.2 Fake Buyers Flood the Market

In 2025, the petroleum market is flooded by:

• Brokers pretending to be buyers

• Buyers with no financial backing

• Traders without bank instruments

• Investors seeking “no upfront” deals

• People claiming RWA without bank support

Because of this, real sellers filter 90% of buyers using POF.

1.3 Institutions Require Bank-to-Bank Verification

A real POF must always be:

✔ Issued by a bank
✔ Verifiable through SWIFT
✔ Linked to a real account
✔ Signed by bank compliance
✔ Sent only bank-to-bank

Anything else is invalid.

SECTION 2 — The 4 Real Instruments for Proving Funds (A to Z Explanation)

Below are the only 4 legitimate forms of POF recognized by sellers, refineries, and terminals.

1. RWA — Ready, Willing & Able Letter

✔ Definition

A formal statement from the buyer’s bank confirming they are:

• Ready to engage

• Willing to proceed

• Able to pay or issue bank instruments

✔ Use Case

• TTT/FOB/CIF petroleum deals

• SBLC/LC issuance

• Monetization operations

• High-value commodity deals

✔ What It Proves

• Buyer’s intent

• Bank relationship

• Financial standing

✔ Limitations

• Does not prove exact balance

• Not binding

• Not a payment guarantee

2. BCL — Bank Comfort Letter

✔ Definition

A bank letter confirming:

• The buyer’s account status

• The buyer’s financial capacity

• The buyer’s reputation and credit relationship

✔ Use Case

• Commodity trades

• Soft proof for mid-cap deals

• Pre-SPA confidence check

✔ What It Proves

• That the buyer holds funds

• That the bank is comfortable supporting the transaction

✔ Limitations

• Not a guarantee

• Cannot substitute MT799 or MT103

• Some sellers reject BCL due to fraud risks

3. MT799 — SWIFT Proof of Funds (Preadvice)

✔ Definition

A SWIFT MT799 is a bank-to-bank message confirming:

• Availability of funds

• Intent to engage

• Readiness to block/issue instruments

• Compliance clearance

This is the gold standard for POF.

✔ Use Case

• EN590/Jet A1 TTT

• FOB loading

• CIF + LC transactions

• SBLC monetization

• Supplier verification

✔ What It Proves

• Real funds

• Real account

• Real banking capacity

• KYC cleared

✔ Limitations

• Requires buyer to have institutional bank

• Cannot be sent by small banks or fintechs

• Requires compliance approval

• Not suitable for unprepared buyers

4. Bank Comfort / Soft POF Letter (Non-SWIFT)

✔ Definition

A simple bank letter (email or PDF) confirming:

• Account ownership

• Account balance (optionally)

• Basic creditworthiness

✔ Use Case

• Early pre-qualification

• DIP test pre-negotiations

• Low-risk trades

✔ Limitations

• Weakest form of POF

• Not bank-to-bank

• Not SWIFT-verifiable

• Fraud-prone

• Rejected by 80% of real sellers

SECTION 3 — NNRV Expert Analysis: Which POF Is Best?

POF Requirements Vary by Delivery Mode

Top Buyer Mistakes (NNRV Perspective)

1. Sending PDF bank statements

2. Sending screenshots

3. Sending personal bank accounts

4. Using fintech banks with no SWIFT capability

5. Refusing to send bank-to-bank communication

6. Expecting POP before POF

7. Using fake or outdated RWA/BCL

Top Seller Mistakes

1. Requiring MT799 too early

2. Not offering soft procedures for real buyers

3. Rejecting legitimate BCLs prematurely

4. Not coordinating buyer’s bank with terminal schedule

5. Allowing brokers to interfere in POF flow

Real Seller Expectations (Institutional)

A real seller accepts:

• RWA for pre-qualification,

• BCL for early comfort,

• MT799 after SPA,

• MT103 for payment,

• MT760 for SBLC-backed deals.

Anyone asking for:

• MT799 before SPA

• MT103 before DIP

• Full POP before POF

• CPA before ICPO

…is fake or inexperienced.

SECTION 4 — Step-by-Step POF Process Before SPA & POP

STEP 1 — Buyer Submits ICPO + Corporate KYC (Day 1–2)

Includes buyer procedure acceptance.

STEP 2 — Seller Pre-Screens Buyer (Day 2–3)

Verifies legitimacy.

STEP 3 — Soft POF (RWA or BCL) (Day 2–5)

Required before any POP release (partial).

STEP 4 — SPA Issued (Day 5–10)

Seller issues SPA after confirming credibility.

STEP 5 — Bank-to-Bank MT799 (Day 7–14)

Triggers POP, DTA, or vessel nomination.

STEP 6 — DIP Test or Loading Protocol (Day 10–20)

Inspection begins.

STEP 7 — MT103 Payment (Day 12–22)

Final payment and title transfer.

SECTION 5 — Buyer & Seller Questions (20 Total)

10 Buyer Questions

1. Does MT799 show my exact balance? (No.)

2. Is BCL enough for real sellers? (Often for pre-qualification.)

3. Do I need MT799 for TTT? (Yes, 90% of the time.)

4. Can I avoid SWIFT? (No, not for institutional deals.)

5. Does RWA expose my bank info? (Only to seller’s bank.)

6. Can a fintech bank send MT799? (No.)

7. Do sellers accept escrow accounts? (Rare.)

8. Can I do DIP test without POF? (Never.)

9. Can I use an SBLC as POF? (Yes, if valid.)

10. Can NNRV validate my POF? (Yes.)

10 Seller Questions

1. Should I accept screenshots? (No.)

2. Which POF confirms a real buyer? (MT799.)

3. Should POF be before SPA? (Soft POF yes, MT799 no.)

4. What if buyer refuses bank-to-bank? (Reject.)

5. Can brokers handle POF? (Never.)

6. Should I show POP before POF? (No.)

7. When do I issue DTA? (After SPA + MT799.)

8. Should I share tank numbers before MT799? (No.)

9. Can I ask for MT103 before DIP? (Impossible.)

10. How to avoid fake buyers? (NNRV pre-screening.)

SECTION 6 — Institutional Proof & Credibility

The POF structures described reflect the protocols of:

• HSBC

• Barclays

• BNP Paribas

• Deutsche Bank

• Standard Chartered

• UOB / OCBC / DBS

• Citibank

Corresponding compliance frameworks:

✔ Basel III liquidity rules
✔ FATF AML
✔ OFAC/EU Sanctions
✔ SWIFT messaging standards
✔ Port authority rules

This is the global standard for petroleum transactions and SBLC-backed trades.

SECTION 7 — Professional Call to Action (CTA)

📌 Need to Prove Funds Safely & Professionally?

NNRV Trade Partners can structure your RWA, BCL, MT799, or SBLC workflow from A–Z.

We provide:

• POF review

• Bank instrument verification

• RWA/BCL drafting

• MT799 coordination

• SPA alignment

• Full seller-side acceptance guidance

• Institutional buyer/seller onboarding

📩 info@nnrvtradepartners.com
🌐 www.nnrvtradepartners.com

Mini FAQ (5 Key Questions)

1. Can NNRV check my RWA or BCL for authenticity?
   Yes — instantly.

2. Do all sellers accept BCL?
   No — depends on risk level.

3. Is MT799 mandatory for TTT?
   Usually yes.

4. Can DIP test happen with only RWA?
   Not in 2025.

5. Can fintech banks issue RWA/MT799?
   No — SWIFT capability required.

Why Choose NNRV Trade Partners?

• Institutional compliance

• Real refinery and seller access

• Expertise in SBLC/LC, MT799, MT760, RWA

• Full POF structuring

• Zero-fraud filtration

• Bank-to-bank coordination

• Global buyer & seller onboarding

• Confidential and professional