I know we have had our differences lately about trust issues and if I comment here it is not to make them bigger. I will try to give my honest opinion on the subject and try to build bridges.
I disagree about the tag being unjustified because the scam hasn't happened... yet. If this guy gets away with this attempt at $150k with noting more than a slap on the wrist, he might try only $15k next time and someone will fall for it.
I think we just discussed this in the past. There are people for whom a red tag should only be sent when there is proof beyond reasonable doubt, so we would never red tag anyone before the scam happened, and others, including myself, who think that a red tag can be used to warn, when you think it is very likely that the person is going to scam.
In fact, if we look at the definition next to the red tag:
You think that trading with this person is high-risk.
we see that there is a component of subjectivity. Whoever devised the system did not make it so that people would only be red tagged when there was evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
So in this case, and others, I think the red tag could be justified even if the scam did not happen. Personally I want to think about it better and re-read the thread again before deciding.
The difference I see here is that the crude scam attempts we see for low amounts can trap people with little knowledge and naivete. But there are not usually people with $150K to lend that meet those characteristics. However, if the amount goes down, and as you say in the future they ask for $15K or less, the probability of finding a sucker increases.