On this page
The short answer
Between July 2025 and mid-2026 we engaged Financely (Financely Group / FG Capital Advisors) to secure funding for a solar project in India on behalf of Saime Green Energy Pvt Ltd. Under a Binding Engagement Letter we paid a USD 52,500 mandate fee, followed by further payments of USD 26,500 and GBP 1,350 — each requested with a written assurance that no further fees would follow. The core contractual deliverables (term sheet, financial model, investor memorandum, signed commitments) were, in our records, not delivered to the agreed deadlines; a further USD 4,000 / GBP 400 was then requested, which we declined; and the project was placed “on hold.” This is our documented account and our honest opinion, published in the public interest so other developers can review the facts and decide for themselves.
We are publishing our formal, documented timeline of our engagement with Financely (Financely Group / FG Capital Advisors) for solar project funding in India, on behalf of Saime Green Energy Pvt Ltd. We share it in the public interest — to help fellow founders, renewable-energy developers and project sponsors make informed decisions — and everything below reflects our own experience and the records we retain.
About this post
This is a first-hand account of our own commercial experience and our honest opinion, written in good faith and based on documentation we hold (engagement letter, payment records and email correspondence). It is not a statement of fact about any other party's dealings. The companies named are welcome to respond, and we will publish a fair correction if any material point is shown to be inaccurate.
The initial binding engagement (the mandate)
In 2025 we found Financely via an online search while seeking project funding for a solar development in India. The pitch was advisory, underwriting and distribution services to secure funding with a 10% equity component. Financely issued a Binding Engagement Letter (Mandate) which, in our reading, committed both parties and could not be amended or withdrawn from unilaterally.
“This engagement letter constitutes a binding commitment by Financely… may only be amended by written agreement of both Saime Green Energy Pvt Ltd and Financely… Neither party may unilaterally withdraw from this engagement except for material breach.”
The contractual deliverables and deadlines (per the mandate)
- Draft term sheet within 10 business days
- Initial project finance model within 3 weeks
- Investor offering memorandum within 6 weeks
- Signed conditional commitments from lenders / equity subscribers within 12 weeks
USD 52,500
Mandate fee received by Financely on 8 July 2025.
Shifting demands, extra fees and broken timelines
Rather than delivering the core milestones within the agreed periods, our experience was of repeated changes and further requests for money. In November 2025, instead of the outstanding deliverables, Financely issued a “Deal Overview” promising progression to First Close within 3–4 weeks and, in writing, that no further fees would be required. Relying on that, we paid a further USD 26,500 on 21 November 2025. A further GBP 1,350 was then requested — again with a written assurance that no more fees would follow and a promise of funding completion by 31 March 2026. We paid that too.
Administrative delay we experienced
Opening corporate/escrow accounts (including correspondence with Altery) was listed as an immediate step. In our experience this — a task that usually takes days — ran to over four months of delay in submitting the required documentation, despite our full cooperation.
Total paid before we paused
By the point we declined further payments, we had paid USD 79,000 plus GBP 1,350. A further USD 4,000 (and GBP 400) was then requested after 31 March 2026 passed without funding — which we declined, having asked that the existing contractual obligations be met first.
The engagement in numbers
USD 79,000
Total advance fees paid
+ GBP 1,350
Additional fee paid
0 of 4
Contractual deliverables received
4+ months
Bank-account setup delay
A separate GBP 1,350 fee was also paid in early 2026 (different currency, shown separately). The hatched bar was requested but declined by us. Each fee was accompanied, in our experience, by a written assurance that no further fees would follow.
Escalation, change of tone and a unilateral “on hold”
During this period we connected with another business owner on LinkedIn who described, to us, a similar pattern of advance fees followed by non-performance. When we raised the missed milestones, our experience was that the tone changed and that reasons shifted — from performance to questions about our “budget” and “payment capacity,” and to the position that “funding is not guaranteed.” We were told a “new team” would take over under new terms; when we asked that the original binding terms remain in place, the original team returned and, in our experience, again requested additional money.
Where matters stand
Despite our understanding that the mandate prohibited unilateral withdrawal or amendment without mutual written consent, the funding was placed “on hold” while the fees already paid were retained. This is the situation as we record it.
Timeline: fees paid vs contractual deliverables
The table below sets out, from our records, what was paid at each stage, what was promised, and the outcome we experienced.
The engagement, month by month
- 2025Mandate
Engagement begins
Found Financely via an online search; Binding Engagement Letter (mandate) signed for solar project funding with a 10% equity component.
- 8 Jul 2025USD 52,500Paid
Mandate fee paid
Deliverables due: term sheet (10 business days), financial model (3 weeks), investor memo (6 weeks), signed commitments (12 weeks).
- Aug–Oct 2025Not delivered
Contractual deadlines pass
The core deliverables were, in our records, not delivered within the agreed periods.
- 21 Nov 2025USD 26,500Paid
“Deal Overview” + second fee
Promised First Close in 3–4 weeks, with a written assurance of no further fees.
- Early 2026GBP 1,350Paid
Third fee paid
Again assured no further fees; funding completion promised by 31 March 2026.
- OngoingStalled 4+ months
Bank / escrow setup stalls
Account-opening documentation (incl. correspondence with Altery) delayed over four months despite our cooperation.
- 31 Mar 2026Deadline missed
Funding deadline missed
The promised completion date passed with no funding delivered.
- Mid 2026USD 4,000 / GBP 400We declined
Further fee requested — we declined
Contradicting the earlier written assurances; we asked that existing obligations be met first.
- By 30 Jun 2026On hold
Project placed “on hold”
The revised date passed; funding was placed on hold while the fees already paid were retained.
| Date | Stage / document | Fee paid | Promised deliverable / timeline | Outcome (per our records) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8 Jul 2025 | Binding Engagement Letter (Mandate) | USD 52,500 | Term sheet, financial model, investor memo, signed commitments | Not delivered |
| 21 Nov 2025 | “Deal Overview” document | USD 26,500 | Milestones & First Close in 3–4 weeks (zero extra fees promised) | Not delivered |
| Early 2026 | Subsequent fee agreement | GBP 1,350 | Final funding completion by 31 March 2026 | Not delivered |
| Mid 2026 | Escalation / refusal | USD 4,000 requested (declined) | Funding pushed to 30 June 2026, then project placed “on hold” | Unilateral halt |
The companies referenced
For clarity and so readers can identify the parties, the businesses referenced in this account present themselves online as Financely, Financely Group and FG Capital Advisors. We link to them so you can review their own materials and form your own view.
Supporting documentation
The statements in this post are supported by documentation we retain — the signed binding engagement letter and payment terms, the “Deal Overview” document, the email threads recording the fee assurances and subsequent demands, and the banking-setup correspondence. Viewable copies of the supporting documents will be linked here.
Key takeaways
- Creeping advance fees: a large initial mandate fee can be followed by further “Deal Overview” or “processing” fees — in our experience each was accompanied by a promise that it was the final one.
- Administrative stalling: simple operational steps, such as opening a corporate bank account, ran to months in our case.
- Binding language, ignored in practice: terms we understood to be non-amendable without mutual consent did not, in our experience, hold once fees were paid.
- Shifting pretexts: when we sought accountability, the conversation moved from delivery to our “budget,” our “tone,” and the position that funding “was never guaranteed.”
- Do your own due diligence, insist milestones are met before paying further fees, and keep every communication in writing.
Frequently asked questions
Is Financely (Financely Group / FG Capital Advisors) legitimate — or a scam?
We are not in a position to make a legal determination, and we make no such assertion. What we can share is our own documented experience: advance fees paid under a binding mandate, core deliverables that were not delivered to the agreed deadlines in our records, further fee requests, and a project placed unilaterally “on hold.” We publish the facts and our honest opinion so you can review them and decide for yourself. If the companies named dispute any material point, we will publish a fair correction.
How much did you pay in total?
According to our records: USD 52,500 (8 July 2025), USD 26,500 (21 November 2025) and GBP 1,350 (early 2026) — USD 79,000 plus GBP 1,350 in total. A further USD 4,000 (and GBP 400) was requested after the 31 March 2026 funding date passed, which we declined.
What would you advise other founders and project developers?
Treat large upfront fees with caution, especially where they are followed by further “final” fees. Insist that contractual milestones are delivered before any additional payment, get every promise in writing, verify the counterparty independently, and take your own legal advice before signing a mandate or transferring funds.
Will you update this post?
Yes. We will add viewable copies of the supporting documentation, and we will publish any fair correction or right-of-reply from the companies named if a material point is shown to be inaccurate.
Want help putting this into practice?
We turn ideas like these into shipped software and real growth.
Written by
Narendra Kumar
Founder, Narendra Infotech Ltd
Founder of Narendra Infotech Ltd, pairing two decades of industry insight with a hands-on, outcomes-first approach to software and growth.
View full profile