Full Details of the Scam Alert
What’s happening
- Portage County (Wisconsin) officials have publicly warned residents of a fraudulent email / invoice scam targeting permit and application applicants. (co.portage.wi.gov)
- The scam involves fake invoices that appear to be sent from county government departments—especially from the “Portage County Planning Commission” or planning & zoning offices. (https://www.wsaw.com)
- The fraudulent emails often reference actual permit or application data taken from publicly available meeting agendas or county planning documents. The scammers use that real information to make the invoice seem legitimate. (https://www.wsaw.com)
- The invoice will instruct the target to pay a “fee” (e.g. “Application Review & Processing,” “Zoning & Compliance Assessment,” “Public Notification & Documentation,” “Legal & Administration”) to continue or approve the permit. (co.portage.wi.gov)
Official warnings & clarifications
- Portage County states these emails and invoices are not legitimate and should be ignored. (co.portage.wi.gov)
- The Planning & Zoning Department explicitly says it will never request payment via wire transfer. Legitimate permit fee requests are handled through known, official channels. (co.portage.wi.gov)
- The county encourages anyone receiving a suspicious invoice email to contact the Sheriff’s Office at 715‑346‑1400. (co.portage.wi.gov)
- For verifying the status of any permit or application (and the correct fee), residents should call the Planning & Zoning Department at 715‑346‑1334. (co.portage.wi.gov)
Case Illustrations & Patterns
While no specific victim names or dollar amounts have been published (so far), the reported modus operandi provides insight into how these scams play out:
- Use of public information: Scammers comb through published meeting agendas, permit listings, or county planning commission documents to pick up real names, permit numbers, or project references. They then send “invoices” that mirror or reference those real items, making the invoice appear credible.
- Fake departmental identity: The invoice comes from a department that legitimately exists (Planning, Zoning, “Permits & Approvals”). That makes the recipient more likely to trust it.
- Pressure to pay to proceed: The email will claim the project or application cannot move forward unless the fee is paid, creating urgency and fear in the recipient.
- Unusual payment method: The email may direct wire transfers or nonstandard payment methods — a red flag since government departments rarely ask for wire payments in such contexts.
These tactics are standard in invoice fraud / business email compromise (BEC) scams, adapted to the public sector / municipal services domain.
Comments, Risks & Observations
- Exploiting trusted institutions
Because the scam impersonates local government, it leverages preexisting trust. Many people are less suspicious when invoices seem to come from a familiar county department. - Low barrier to entry
The scam doesn’t require hacking systems; just harvesting public data (via meeting agendas, permit listings) is sufficient to create plausible fake invoices. - Payment channel is a key giveaway
Legitimate government fees are rarely (if ever) requested via wire transfer in unsolicited emails. That is a major red flag. - Potential financial / reputational harm
Victims may lose money, have funds unrecoverable, or face delays in their real permit processes if they lose trust or get misled. The county might also face reputational damage if many residents are scammed. - Importance of official verification routes
The county’s advice to call official numbers (not numbers in the email) is essential — verifying separately is the best defense. - Communication speed is critical
The county and sheriff’s office acting quickly with a public alert helps reduce potential harm. The earlier an alert is out, the fewer users fall for scams. - Scalability & copycat risk
Because the method is relatively simple, it’s likely to be adopted by scammers in other counties, especially those with open public permit/agendas systems. - Awareness gap among applicants
People applying for permits may not expect phishing / invoice fraud in that context, so awareness is lower. That makes them more vulnerable. - Here are case‑style breakdowns (based on the reported Portage County alert) and commentary / lessons learned that help unpack how the scam works, how residents might respond, and what to watch out for.
Case‑Style Illustrations
Case A — Permit Applicant Targeted
- Context: Jane Smith is applying for a building permit in Portage County. The permit number and her name appear on the county planning meeting agenda, which is public.
- Scam email: She receives an invoice by email from “Portage County Planning Commission” asking for a “Processing & Compliance Fee” of $150 to move forward. It includes the correct permit number. The email says unless payment is received by a deadline, the permit is voided.
- Red flags: The email asks for wire transfer payment. The sender’s email domain is a free email address or slightly off from the official county domain.
- Response (correct): She calls the county’s Planning & Zoning office (not the number in the email) and the county confirms they never send such invoices by email or request wire transfers. She reports the fraudulent email.
Case B — Small Contractor / Developer
- Context: A local contractor working on multiple small projects monitors public meeting agendas.
- Scam email: He gets several invoices referencing projects he does work on, each asking for “Zoning & Document Fee” or “Legal Notification Fee.”
- Impact: If he paid unknowingly, he might have to absorb costs or delay his real fees.
- Response (defensive): He flags the emails, cross‑references payment instructions with county published payment portals, reports to the Sheriff’s Office, and warns subcontractors.
Case C — Bulk Scamming of Prospective Applicants
- Context: Scammers blast dozens of emails to property owners whose names appear in permit agendas (publicly posted).
- Scam emails: Each email references a different public record (permit number, address) and demands payment for “Public Notice Fee” or “Administrative Fee.”
- Outcome: Some recipients may pay before verifying, especially if they assume the county is just being opaque. Others realize it’s fraud and report it.
- Net effect: Some funds are lost; administrative cost to county to field inquiries rises; increased distrust among residents in official communications.
Commentary, Risks & Lessons Learned
1. Public record exposure is a double‑edged sword
While transparency in government (publishing meeting agendas, permit applications) is good governance, scammers exploit that same data to craft plausible fraudulent invoices.
2. Impersonation of trusted authority
Scams use names of real offices (Planning, Zoning, Permit) to appear legitimate — making it harder for recipients to spot fakes.
3. Payment method is a telltale sign
Legitimate county fees are rarely — if ever — requested via wire transfers in unsolicited emails. That should raise red flags immediately.
4. Crisis communication matters
Portage County’s fast public notification, urging residents to ignore emails and giving real phone numbers, helps limit damage. Delays in such warnings amplify risk.
5. Verification channels must be independent
Residents should always verify via trusted sources (county website, published office numbers), not via phone numbers or links in suspicious emails.
6. Education & awareness campaigns help
Many residents may not expect invoice scams in the context of permits. Ongoing awareness drives (e.g. “We do not email invoices requiring wire transfers”) can reduce victimization.
7. Scalability & imitation risk
Given the simplicity — look up public permit data + send invoice email — scammers may replicate the pattern in other counties or jurisdictions. Municipalities should proactively warn residents.
8. Legal / recovery challenges
If someone pays, recovering their funds may be difficult, especially if the scammers use untraceable channels. Victim reporting to law enforcement and banks is essential.
9. Systemic signals for detection
Counties could monitor for suspicious “invoice emails” referencing public records and cross‑check common recipients or sender patterns to detect waves early.