Red flags and profile screening

Which patterns indicate an unreliable profile or client? Concrete signals, screening steps and 2025 platform data.

Recognising red flags for clients and providers alike

This piece accompanies our pillar Making appointments safely online and looks more closely at concrete patterns that function as red flags in our data — and in broader practice. We split it into two parts: red flags for clients screening a provider, and red flags for providers screening a client.

A brief note upfront: the majority of interactions on the platform go smoothly. Our internal data show that the vast majority of clients are reliable and the vast majority of verified providers work professionally. The patterns outlined below are the exceptions, not the rule. But they do occur and it is worth knowing what to look out for.

For clients: red flags on a provider profile

1. Profile photos that are too perfect. Some fraudulent profiles use photos of fashion models, social media influencers or stock libraries. A quick reverse image search will usually reveal this. Our internal pHash pipeline catches some of this at the verification stage, but profiles without a "Verified" badge have not yet passed through this check.

2. No or very little written description on the profile. In our 2025 data we observed a correlation between profiles with fewer than 100 words of text and profiles that went offline within 30 days. This is not a hard rule — some providers simply write little — but in combination with other signals it is a red flag.

3. Unusually high last-minute discounts. "50% off today, cash only" is a pattern we have seen recur in accounts that are later rejected at KYC. Established providers with a solid reputation have no need for such incentives.

4. Communication that suddenly goes unanswered after a specific detail is raised. For example: everything proceeds smoothly until you ask for the exact address or mention a specific service. A legitimate profile can always provide an explanation; a fraudulent one often disappears at that point.

5. Absence of a workable review trail. A new profile will logically have no reviews yet. But a profile that has been active for months with no approved reviews (and no "under moderation" indications on the profile) is a mild red flag — either the provider works very infrequently, or reviews are being actively suppressed by third parties.

6. Requests for advance payment via crypto or gift vouchers. This remains an active pattern in 2026, unfortunately. Reputable providers accept payment at the agreed location, not in advance via an irreversible payment method. A request for "a €50 PaySafeCard to confirm you are serious" is always fraud.

For providers: red flags from a client

1. First contact in a foreign language and full of grammar and spelling errors. Many international fraud attempts are carried out via automated messages. A genuinely interested client is capable of writing a few coherent sentences.

2. Pressing for specific details before the basics have been established. A client who asks about specific sexual acts in their first message — before time, location or even working conditions have been discussed — is generally not the client you want.

3. Insisting on an exceptionally low rate or an unusual payment method. "I only pay afterwards by bank transfer" or "I'll give you a gift card as payment" are patterns that in our data correlate strongly with no-shows or payment disputes.

4. Last-minute booking with excessive urgency. Not every last-minute booking is suspicious. But a client who states in their first message that they want to meet "within 30 minutes" and allows no time for basic screening is a higher-risk category.

5. A client who explicitly objects to any form of screening. Standard screening — a brief exchange, a reference, a phone call — is not a problem for most clients. A client who rejects every verification request is suspicious.

6. A client who repeatedly steers towards keeping the appointment entirely off the record. For example: "can you not tell anyone I'm with you?" This is not suspicious in itself — discretion is normal — but in combination with insistence on untraceable payment methods or refusal of verification, it forms a pattern.

Legal and regulatory context for red-flag reports

For those wondering which regulatory resources are relevant when a red flag escalates into a concrete report:

Threats via messages. [ref: article 285 of the Dutch Penal Code — bedreiging] is the legal basis for what in Dutch terms would be called "death threats via WhatsApp / Telegram". In acute situations, 112 is the primary channel; for recorded threats without immediate urgency, dial 0900-8844.
Suspicions of human trafficking. Meld Misdaad Anoniem — 0800-7000 — accepts anonymous tips and has a dedicated reporting portal for sex work contexts. Legal basis: [ref: article 273f of the Dutch Penal Code — human trafficking].
Private address requests for outcall that appear unjustified. [ref: article 138 of the Dutch Penal Code — huisvredebreuk] provides the basis for refusing entry if a client engages in boundary-crossing behaviour once inside; for the provider this is the basis for immediately requesting the client's departure when in doubt.
PrEP and sexual health. Soa Aids Nederland has had a comprehensive PrEP guideline for sex workers since 2024, along with a telephone helpdesk for questions about risk assessment per client. PrEP is reimbursed in 2026 under the Dutch basic healthcare package subject to certain criteria.
Victim support. Slachtofferhulp Nederland — free support after incidents, including legal assistance. Discreet and specialised in violence and intimidation cases.
PMW guidelines. Prostitutie Maatschappelijk Werk publishes sector guidelines — covering screening, how to conduct conversations and what to do when an appointment goes wrong.

What we adjusted in 2025

In the first ten weeks after the catalogue went live in Amsterdam we observed a specific pattern: a handful of registrations where the provider had signed up from a foreign mobile number and the accompanying identity documentation did not correspond to that country. Since then we have added an extra step in which, for international numbers, an explicit residency status check is carried out before the listing becomes publicly visible. This has measurably reduced the number of false-identity registrations in our data.

A second adjustment came from the Eindhoven market and was implemented platform-wide in 2025. Some providers who registered had photos that were also being used in Amsterdam; initially our duplicate-detection flagged these cases incorrectly as suspicious. Since March 2025 we have applied an explicit exception for verified dual-city profiles.

What we do not yet know

An honest caveat: we do not keep statistics on the absolute number of fraudulent interactions we block versus those reported by clients or providers themselves. Our data are limited to what our reporting channel captures; many interactions that do not result in a report are invisible to us. This is a measurable gap and we are working on better telemetry for 2027.

In the meantime: trust your judgement. If something does not feel right, that is generally a sign to look further. Our pillar Making appointments safely online covers the general basic steps; this page was intended as the more specific checklist of patterns.

SafetyRed flags and profile screening