← Back to Home

p3funding.com Scam Check: 10/100 Trust | ScamMinder

Website: p3funding.com

Screenshot of p3funding.com

Safety Score

10/100
✗ Scam Risk

Exercise caution when interacting with this website.

AI Analysis Results

Category: Financial
About this website:

The website content is filled with generic and repetitive language, which is a common tactic used by scam websites to appear legitimate. The use of phrases like 'donate for melina the little child' and 'relief for australia cyclone effected' can be emotionally manipulative, aiming to evoke sympathy and prompt donations. However, legitimate charitable organizations typically provide specific details about their aid efforts, including the specific projects they're working on, the communities they're helping, and the impact of their work. The lack of such detailed information is a red flag. Furthermore, the website's emphasis on fundraising and donations without clear information on how the funds are used is concerning. Legitimate charities are transparent about their financials and how donations are allocated. The website's repetitive use of phrases related to donations and fundraising, along with the prominent 'donate now' buttons, can be seen as an attempt to push visitors into making impulsive donations. The website's claim of 'donated by 60 people,' 'donated by 50 people,' etc., without any context or verification, is another red flag. Legitimate organizations usually provide transparent and verifiable information about their donors and the impact of donations. The use of generic and common names like 'johan mendal,' 'micheal shon,' and 'tom henry' in the content can be a tactic to create a sense of familiarity and trust, but it's a common strategy used by scam websites. The website's footer section includes contact information with phone numbers, but the use of generic names like 'raju singh (bihar)' and 'shailesh (mumbai)' without specific roles or titles is unprofessional and lacks transparency. The website's copyright claim for the year 2025 is unusual for a site that was created in 2021. It's a tactic used by some scam websites to create a false sense of longevity and legitimacy. The website's design and layout, including the use of stock images and generic content, are common among low-quality or hastily created websites, which can be a sign of a scam. The website's focus on a wide range of charitable causes, from medical facilities to education and disaster relief, without specific details or evidence of their work in these areas, is another red flag. Legitimate charities usually have a clear focus and provide detailed information about their projects. The website's use of phrases like 'our donner' instead of 'our donors' and other grammatical errors is unprofessional and can be a sign of a low-quality or hastily created website. The website's claim of 'total fund raised,' 'successful events,' and 'worldwide volunteers' without any specific numbers or verifiable information is another red flag. Legitimate organizations provide transparent and verifiable data about their impact and operations. Overall, the website exhibits several characteristics commonly associated with scam or fraudulent websites. It's important to exercise caution and thoroughly research any organization before making donations, especially if the website shows multiple red flags like those mentioned above."

Risk Assessment: scam
📊 Analysis Reasons:
  • Generic and repetitive language, Emotionally manipulative phrases, Lack of specific details about aid efforts, Emphasis on fundraising and donations without clear information on fund usage, Repetitive use of donation-related phrases, Lack of transparency about financials and donation allocation, Unverified claims about the number of donors, Use of generic and common names, Unprofessional and unverifiable contact information, Unusual copyright claim for the year 2025, Low-quality website design and layout, Lack of specific evidence or details about charitable causes, Grammatical errors and unprofessional language, Unverified and vague claims about fundraising and volunteer numbers