We look at how the payment left you, where it went, and which lawful routes are still open: a card chargeback, a claim against a bank or payment provider, a regulator complaint, a police report or a civil claim. Losing money to an operation like this says nothing about your judgement; these schemes are staffed, scripted and rehearsed to work on careful people. The first assessment costs nothing, and if there is no realistic route we say so and decline the case.
No forms, no required fields: you write directly and decide what to share.
We work through banks, card schemes, payment providers, exchanges, regulators, police and the courts. No hacking, no bought database access, no contacting or confronting the people who took your money.
Correspondence stays in the messenger you choose, documents sit in a closed client portal, and your matter is handled by a named lawyer rather than a shared inbox.
A weak case is not made stronger by paying someone to work on it. If the payment rail, the timing or the destination of the funds leaves nothing realistic to do, we tell you that instead of selling you a plan.
Anonymised examples of the work we do, shortened and stripped of identifying detail. They describe what was done, not what you should expect: no two matters run the same way, and results are never promised.
Most people arrive with one of the situations below. They are ordinary, they are common, and recognising yours here is the first step towards knowing whether anything can still be done.
The balance on screen keeps rising, but every withdrawal request is delayed, cancelled or permanently under review. The profit shown was usually never real; the deposits were.
A tax, fee, insurance premium or anti-money-laundering deposit is demanded before your funds can be released. Paying it releases nothing. It simply adds a fresh loss to the original one.
A friendly adviser explains that a margin call, a licence upgrade or a bigger position is all that stands between you and your money. The script is designed to keep deposits flowing while doubt grows.
The website is down, the app has gone from the store, the group chat is closed and the numbers are dead. Evidence disappears fastest at this stage, which is why capturing it comes before anything else.
Someone met on a dating app, a professional network or a group chat built trust over weeks, then introduced an investment that looked like their own success. The relationship was part of the scheme.
After the loss, another outfit contacted you offering to get the money back for an advance fee. That is almost always the same fraud coming round a second time, working from a list of known victims.
Each area is handled by a lawyer who works in it. You receive a written position, the documents themselves, and support until the matter is closed one way or the other.
We follow the money as far as the public record allows and set out the route in a document that other institutions can act on. Tracing shows where funds went; whether they can be reached is a separate question we answer honestly.
Where you paid by card, the scheme rules give you a defined procedural route with defined time limits. We work out which ground and which window apply to your payments, then build and file the dispute.
A report supported by dated evidence and a fund-flow annex is treated very differently from a two-line complaint. We prepare the filing, submit it through the right channel and keep it moving.
The cheapest stage of this work is the one before the transfer. We check what a platform actually is, who operates it and what its terms really say, and give you a plain answer in writing.
Every lawful route to recovering money lost to a fake broker, a sham exchange or a crypto investment scam runs through a rule that already exists: an EU directive or regulation, a national criminal or civil code, a supervisor's power or a card scheme's rulebook. Below are those rules for the European Union, with particular attention to Spain, Germany, the Czech Republic and Poland. Each group links to the official source, so you can check it yourself before you pay anyone.
PSD2 is transposed in every Member State — in Spain by Real Decreto-ley 19/2018, in Germany in §§ 675c et seq. BGB, in the Czech Republic by Act No. 370/2017 Coll. on Payments, in Poland by the Payment Services Act of 19 August 2011. It draws the line that decides most claims: a payment you did not authorise must be refunded quickly, while a payment you made yourself under deception is, as a rule, treated as authorised. Card payments add a second, contractual layer: the scheme chargeback.
A transaction is unauthorised if you did not consent to it in the form agreed with your provider. You must notify the provider without undue delay and in any event no later than 13 months after the debit date; the provider must then refund the amount and restore the account no later than the end of the following business day, unless it has reasonable grounds to suspect fraud by you and reports them in writing to the competent national authority. This covers a stolen card, compromised card data and account takeover — not a transfer you made yourself.
The provider must prove that the transaction was authenticated, accurately recorded and not affected by a technical breakdown; the mere use of your credentials is not in itself enough to prove that you authorised it or were grossly negligent (Art 72(2)). Your loss is capped at EUR 50 unless you acted fraudulently or failed, intentionally or with gross negligence, to keep your credentials safe or to report loss or misuse (Arts 69 and 74(1)). Whether handing a code to a caller posing as the bank is "gross negligence" is decided case by case by national courts and ombudsmen.
Online payments and remote access to an account must be confirmed with two independent factors, dynamically linked to the amount and the payee. Where your provider did not require strong customer authentication, you bear no financial loss for an unauthorised transaction unless you acted fraudulently. Record exactly what you were asked to confirm and what the confirmation screen or SMS said: it is the key evidence in this dispute.
If you logged in and sent the money yourself to the fraudster's account or to an exchange, the payment is authorised and PSD2 gives no automatic refund right. A claim against your bank is possible only on national-law grounds — for example, that it ignored obvious fraud indicators, failed to act on a timely fraud report or breached its own monitoring duties — and courts across the EU are cautious here. The more realistic targets are the receiving account holder and the receiving bank's freeze.
Before you authorise a euro credit transfer, your provider must check whether the payee name matches the IBAN and warn you of a mismatch. If the provider fails to carry out this check properly and the money reaches the wrong payee as a result, you can claim a refund from it. The check does not help where the fraudster's account is genuinely held in the name you were given — which is typical of money-mule accounts.
Your bank can send a recall to the receiving bank citing fraud; the receiving bank may return funds still on the account, but once they are credited it generally needs the account holder's consent or a legal basis such as a freezing order. Ask your bank to send the recall and to flag the receiving account as fraudulent on the same day: the receiving bank's own anti-money-laundering review is often what actually stops the money.
Your card issuer disputes the transaction with the merchant's acquirer under the scheme rulebook, for example for services not provided or misrepresentation (Visa dispute conditions 13.1 and 13.5; Mastercard reason code 4853). The usual window is 120 days from the processing date or from the date the service was expected. If the card paid a licensed exchange that delivered coins to a wallet you then emptied to the fraudster, issuers usually treat the service as rendered and decline the dispute.
The reform is set to extend provider liability to certain bank-impersonation fraud and to widen payee-verification duties. It is not yet applicable: formal adoption and publication must be completed and a transition period will follow, so check its status at the time of your claim. PSD2 and its national transposition govern claims today.
| Payment method | Recovery mechanism | Realistic deadline | Odds |
|---|---|---|---|
| Card payment to the fraudulent merchant | Chargeback through your card issuer under Visa or Mastercard rules | Typically 120 days from the transaction or from the expected service date; act at once | The most realistic out-of-court route where the card paid the fraudulent merchant directly and you have evidence |
| Unauthorised transaction (stolen card data, account takeover) | PSD2 refund by the end of the next business day, subject to the gross-negligence exception | Without undue delay, and no later than 13 months after the debit | Good, unless the provider proves fraud or gross negligence on your part |
| SEPA credit transfer, including instant transfers | Recall via your bank, fraud flag to the receiving bank, police report, then a civil claim against the account holder | The same day — before the funds are moved on | Low out of court once credited; better if the receiving bank freezes the account |
| Crypto transfer | Blockchain tracing, police report, freeze request to the receiving exchange (CASP) via law enforcement, civil claim against the identified holder | Immediately — before the funds are split, mixed or cashed out | Low; realistic only if the funds reached a regulated exchange that still holds them |
| Cash or voucher | Criminal report only; occasionally the issuer can block an unredeemed code | Immediately — codes are usually redeemed within minutes | Very low |
Deadlines and odds depend on your bank or card issuer, the scheme rules applied, the country of the receiving institution and the facts of your case. The table is orientation for deciding where to put your effort, not a forecast. No one can promise you a recovery.
Open the sourceInvestment fraud is a crime in every Member State. A criminal complaint is free, unlocks investigative powers no private party has — bank and exchange data requests, account freezes, cross-border cooperation — and creates the file that banks, exchanges and courts will ask for. By itself it does not return money: recovery comes through freezing, confiscation and a compensation claim against identified persons who have assets.
Art 248 punishes deceit that leads a person to dispose of property to their own or another's detriment and, as reworded by Ley Orgánica 14/2022, also computer manipulation and misuse of card data; art 249 sets the penalties and art 250 the aggravated forms, including where the loss exceeds EUR 50,000. The victim can join the proceedings as acusación particular and claim civil liability in the same case.
§ 263 covers deception causing a financial loss, with a higher range for especially serious cases such as commercial or gang fraud or a large financial loss (§ 263(3)); § 263a covers manipulation of data processing, including unauthorised use of data. A Strafanzeige can be filed with any police station, online police portal or the public prosecutor's office, free of charge. The victim can claim compensation within the criminal case (Adhäsionsverfahren), and seized assets can be returned to victims under the asset-recovery rules (StGB §§ 73 et seq.; StPO § 459h).
§ 209 punishes enriching oneself or another by misleading someone or exploiting their error and causing damage that is not insignificant; the penalty rises with the amount of damage. The injured party can apply for compensation in adhesion proceedings, at the latest at the main hearing before evidence is taken, and has information and support rights under the Victims of Crime Act.
Art 286 § 1 punishes bringing another person to an unfavourable disposition of property by misleading them or exploiting their error, for financial gain, with imprisonment from six months to eight years; art 294 raises the range where the property is of great value. On conviction the court can order the offender to redress the damage (art 46), and the victim may act as an auxiliary prosecutor (oskarżyciel posiłkowy).
You are entitled to information from the first contact, a written acknowledgement of your complaint, interpretation and translation (Arts 4–7), a review of a decision not to prosecute (Art 11) and a decision on compensation from the offender within criminal proceedings (Art 16). If the crime was committed in another Member State, you can file the complaint in your country of residence, which must transmit it to the competent authority (Art 17).
The directive harmonises offences involving non-cash payment instruments and information-system fraud, expressly including transfers of virtual currency, and requires Member States to provide victims with information, support and operational points of contact for cross-border cooperation. It is the EU-level basis on which national police treat card, account and crypto fraud as a common category.
Europol's European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) and Eurojust coordinate national authorities; neither takes reports from individuals or works on private recovery. An investigating authority in one Member State can issue an EIO to obtain evidence in another, including information on bank accounts and banking transactions (Arts 26–27); the executing state normally decides within 30 days and executes within 90 (Art 12). Ireland and Denmark do not participate in the EIO.
Since 19 December 2020 a freezing or confiscation order issued in one Member State is recognised and executed in another under strict deadlines, and the Regulation gives priority to restitution and compensation of victims. Directive (EU) 2024/1260, to be transposed by 23 November 2027, strengthens asset tracing, freezing and confiscation. These tools act only within criminal proceedings and only on assets that have been located.
A civil claim works against an identified person who received the money: the holder of the receiving account (often a money mule), the operating company, or in some cases an intermediary that breached its own duties. EU procedural regulations let you sue from home, freeze accounts in other Member States and use simplified cross-border procedures. A judgment is an enforcement title, not money: it still has to be enforced against assets.
Where a trader directs its activities to your Member State, you may sue it in the courts of your own domicile, regardless of where the trader is based (Art 18(1)); the trader can sue you only there, and jurisdiction clauses against you are largely ineffective (Art 19). Claims in tort can also be brought where the harmful event occurred (Art 7(2)); the Court of Justice has accepted, in certain investment cases, jurisdiction at the investor's domicile (C-304/17 Löber).
A consumer contract with a trader who directs activities to your country is generally governed by the law of your habitual residence, and a choice of another law cannot deprive you of its mandatory protection (Art 6 Rome I, subject to exclusions for certain financial-instrument rights). Non-contractual claims, such as fraud, are generally governed by the law of the country where the damage occurs (Art 4(1) Rome II).
The holder of the account that received your money must return what was received without a legal basis; in Germany a tort claim also lies under § 823(2) BGB in conjunction with § 263 StGB, and under § 826 BGB. Money mules who "only lent their account" can be liable. The limitation is practical: the account holder is often identified only through the criminal file and frequently has few assets.
In a cross-border case the court can issue a European Account Preservation Order before, during or after proceedings on the merits, without notifying the debtor in advance, so the account is frozen by surprise. Before judgment you must show that the claim is likely to succeed and that there is a real risk enforcement will be impeded (Art 7), and you may have to provide security (Art 12); where you already hold a judgment or similar title but do not know the bank, the court can ask authorities to locate the account (Art 14). The EAPO covers bank accounts only — not crypto accounts — and does not apply in Denmark.
For cross-border claims of up to EUR 5,000 (excluding interest and costs): standard forms, a mainly written procedure and a judgment enforceable in other Member States without a declaration of enforceability. It suits a claim against an identified account holder in another Member State.
For uncontested cross-border money claims, without an upper limit. If the defendant lodges a statement of opposition within 30 days, the case continues as ordinary civil proceedings; if not, the order becomes enforceable across the EU.
Falsely claiming to be authorised or endorsed by a public body is on the blacklist of practices that are unfair in all circumstances, and misleading claims about returns and risks are prohibited. Since the amendment by Directive (EU) 2019/2161, consumers must have access to remedies including compensation for damage (Art 11a) — a useful argument against an identifiable promoter or affiliate.
Indicatively: in Spain five years for personal actions but one year for non-contractual liability; in Germany three years from the end of the year in which you learned of the claim and the debtor; in the Czech Republic three years from when you could first exercise the right; in Poland six years generally and, for tort, three years from knowledge (twenty years where the damage results from a crime). Time also runs while you wait: assets and records disappear long before limitation does.
Investment services, including CFD and forex trading, may be provided in the EU only by a firm authorised by a national competent authority, either at home or through a passport from another Member State. Supervisors do not return money and do not decide individual disputes; their warnings and findings support your complaint and the criminal case. Individual redress against an authorised bank or firm runs through its complaints procedure and then an out-of-court dispute resolution body; against an unauthorised firm, only through the courts and the criminal process.
Check the exact legal entity, not the trading name, in the register of the home authority and in the ESMA registers, and compare the website domain with the one listed. Clones routinely copy the name and licence number of a real firm; a mismatch in domain, contact details or bank account is a decisive warning sign.
The CNMV publishes warnings about unauthorised entities (chiringuitos financieros) and runs a complaints service for authorised investment firms. Complaints about banks and payment services go first to the bank's customer service department and then to the Banco de España complaints service, whose reports are not binding but carry weight in later litigation.
Conducting banking or financial services business without a licence is a criminal offence (§ 54 KWG), and BaFin can order an unauthorised business to cease and be wound up (§ 37 KWG). Consumer complaints to BaFin inform its supervision but do not produce an individual ruling; disputes with banks go to the sector ombudsman schemes (for example, the Ombudsmann der privaten Banken) or to the Schlichtungsstelle bei der BaFin.
The Czech National Bank publishes lists of regulated entities and warnings about unauthorised ones. The Financial Arbitrator (finanční arbitr) decides disputes with banks, payment service providers and investment firms free of charge, and its awards are binding and enforceable.
The KNF maintains a public warnings list (Lista ostrzeżeń publicznych) of entities it has reported to the prosecutor. The Financial Ombudsman (Rzecznik Finansowy) runs out-of-court proceedings, assists with complaints against banks and may submit an expert opinion in court proceedings.
A payment service provider must answer a complaint within 15 business days, or exceptionally within 35 business days with a holding reply explaining the delay (Art 101(2)). If the dispute is with a firm in another Member State, the FIN-NET network directs you to the competent out-of-court body. These bodies decide claims against your bank or firm, not against the fraudster.
I-SCAN aggregates alerts voluntarily submitted by securities regulators worldwide, letting you check one name against many jurisdictions. Absence from a warning list proves nothing; presence on one is a decisive reason not to send money and a strong exhibit for your complaint.
Crypto is not outside the law, but the law bites on regulated intermediaries — exchanges, custodians and stablecoin issuers — rather than on the blockchain itself. Almost everything practical here depends on the funds reaching such an intermediary while it still holds them, and on the right authority asking it to act.
A firm providing crypto-asset services in the EU must be authorised as a CASP; ESMA publishes an interim register of authorised providers and a list of non-compliant entities. CASPs must operate a complaints-handling procedure (Art 71) and are liable for loss of clients' crypto-assets held in custody through incidents attributable to them (Art 75). MiCA is a licensing and conduct regime, not a compensation scheme.
Every transfer of crypto-assets between CASPs must carry the name and account details of the originator and the beneficiary, and transfers above EUR 1,000 to or from a self-hosted address require additional verification. This means an EU exchange that received your funds holds identity data behind the deposit address — data that the police or a court can obtain.
Exchanges and custodial wallet providers must identify customers, monitor transactions and report suspicions to the national financial intelligence unit, which can suspend a transaction. The new single rulebook (AMLR) and the EU Anti-Money Laundering Authority (AMLA) will tighten supervision of the largest cross-border CASPs.
An exchange freezes an account when its own monitoring flags it, when law enforcement requests it or when a competent authority orders it — not because a victim writes in. A prompt notice from you, with a tracing report and a police reference, can still trigger an internal review. Issuers of centralised stablecoins can block an address at contract level, but they act on law-enforcement requests.
You can require your bank, exchange or platform to provide the personal data it holds about you — account records, transaction history, login and IP logs, correspondence — free of charge, within one month, extendable by two months for complex requests. It does not give you data about the recipient, which is protected by the rights of others (Art 15(4)); that comes only through the police or a court. Refusals can be taken to the data protection authority (AEPD, BfDI or the Land authorities, ÚOOÚ, UODO).
Tracing shows the path of funds between addresses and, above all, identifies the deposit address at a named exchange where they came to rest — the factual basis for a police request, an EIO or a civil claim. It does not identify the person controlling an unhosted wallet, does not reverse a transaction and can be defeated by mixers, bridges and pooled wallets.
Most fraud schemes end outside the victim's country: a receiving account in another Member State, an exchange in a third, an operator offshore. EU instruments make cooperation inside the Union faster than it used to be, but every step is taken by a public authority or a court, and speed decides more cases than legal theory.
File the complaint in your country of residence; if the crime was committed elsewhere, the authorities must transmit it. A separate report in the country of the receiving bank or exchange is often worthwhile, because that is where any freeze will have to be carried out.
The first 24–72 hours matter most: block cards and access, ask your bank for a recall, file a police report and notify the receiving exchange. Formal deadlines are longer, but in practice funds are moved on within hours or days, and a later report usually finds an emptied account.
A judicial authority in one Member State can order a service provider in another to produce or preserve electronic evidence — subscriber, traffic or content data — normally within 10 days and within 8 hours in emergencies. It helps identify the people behind domains, hosting and messaging accounts used in the scam; it is an evidence tool, not a recovery tool.
Requests to third countries take months or years, and many offshore jurisdictions answer slowly or not at all. Recognition of an EU judgment abroad depends on treaties or local law; the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention applies between the EU and its other contracting states, including, since 1 July 2025, the United Kingdom.
Full recovery is the exception; partial recovery through a chargeback, a frozen account or a claim against an identified account holder is more common, and many cases end without recovery. Costs, timelines and chances should be assessed honestly before each step, especially for court action abroad.
No private company can seize funds from third parties, lift exchange freezes or "collect" money abroad without a court or authority. An outfit that contacts you unprompted, guarantees a result or demands a fee, tax or deposit before anything is filed is running the second half of the same scheme. Check that any lawyer is registered with the bar (Colegio de Abogados, Rechtsanwaltskammer, Česká advokátní komora, Okręgowa Rada Adwokacka or OIRP) and insist on a written engagement describing specific actions.
Important. This page is reference information, not legal advice on your case, and no lawful route guarantees that money will be recovered. Beware the second wave: after a loss you may be approached by a "fund recovery department", an "Interpol" or "Europol lawyer", an "exchange compliance team" or someone claiming your funds are already frozen and only need releasing against a fee, a "withdrawal tax" or a "liquidity deposit". No police force, prosecutor, Europol, Eurojust, financial supervisor or ombudsman charges an upfront fee to return money, and none of them will ask for your seed phrase, one-time codes, online-banking password or remote access to your device. Reporting a crime is free in every EU Member State, and you can check any firm yourself in the ESMA registers and on national warning lists.
No forms to leave and no waiting for a call back. You write in a messenger and get specifics in the same conversation.
Describe what happened in a few sentences: what you paid, how you paid it and when. We tell you whether a realistic route exists before any fee is discussed, and we say so plainly if it does not.
Statements, receipts, transaction hashes, wallet addresses, screenshots of the account and the site, and full chat exports. Much of this vanishes within days, so it is captured, dated and stored first.
Funds are followed as far as the public ledgers allow, and the findings go into a fund-flow report. Around it we build the chargeback file, the complaints and the police report, each written for its recipient.
Everything is filed through the proper channel, deadlines are diarised, and every response is answered rather than filed away. You receive a written update at each stage, including when the news is unwelcome.
Crypto can never be traced or recovered
Most public ledgers are permanently readable, so the route funds took can usually be reconstructed. What matters is where they came to rest: an account at a regulated exchange can be frozen on a lawful request, while a self-hosted wallet or a mixing service usually cannot be reached at all. Tracing is often possible; return of funds is a separate and much less certain question.
I sent the money myself, so nothing can be done
A payment made because you were deliberately deceived is still fraud, and both card scheme rules and criminal law treat it that way. In the EU, PSD2 requires banks to refund payments you did not authorise, and the Verification of Payee checks now required for euro transfers can matter when a bank's handling of a deceptive transfer is reviewed. Consent obtained by a lie is not the end of the analysis, though it does make some routes harder.
The police will not take a report like this
Reports of this kind are recorded through national fraud and cybercrime channels, and a reference number is often required before a bank or regulator will engage with you at all. Individual investigation is not guaranteed and rarely fast. A properly prepared report with dated evidence and a fund-flow annex is far harder to set aside than a short complaint.
It has been six months, so it is too late
Chargeback windows depend on the ground being used and commonly run from about 120 up to 540 days, measured from the payment or from the date a service was due. Under PSD2, an unauthorised transaction must be reported to your bank within 13 months of the debit. Regulator complaints, police reports and civil claims have their own separate limits. Late is not the same as closed, but every week removes options, so the assessment should happen now rather than after more thought.
A recovery department is already helping me, they just need a fee
This is the second wave of the same fraud. Fake fund recovery departments, Interpol lawyers and exchange security teams work from lists of people who have already lost money, and they ask for an advance fee, a withdrawal tax, or access to your wallet. No genuine lawyer, exchange or police unit will ever ask for your seed phrase, your SMS or authenticator codes, or remote access to your computer. Stop paying, keep every message, and report it as a fresh offence.
A guarantee is only worth something if you can hold someone to it. These are written into the engagement and you are entitled to demand every one of them.
Before any fee, you get our reading of your case in writing: which routes are open, which are closed, and what each one realistically depends on.
If the payment rail, the elapsed time or the destination of the funds leaves no realistic mechanism, we say so at the first assessment, at no charge, and we do not take the matter on.
The scope and the price are fixed in the engagement before anything begins. There are no fees invented mid-case, and no payment is ever requested to unlock, release or insure your funds.
Not your seed phrase, not a private key, not an SMS or authenticator code, not remote access to your device. Anyone asking for those is not working for you, whoever they claim to be.
Your file is visible only to the lawyer assigned to it. Nothing is shared with third parties except the documents you instruct us to file, and nothing is published as a case study without your written consent.
You are told what has been filed, what has come back and what is next, in writing, at each step. That includes refusals and dead ends, which you hear from us rather than discover later.
Honest about the limits. No lawyer, firm or agency can guarantee that money will be returned, and any promise of recovery is itself a warning sign. The outcome rests with banks, card schemes, payment providers, exchanges, regulators, police and courts, on whether the funds still exist somewhere the law can reach, and on how much time has passed since payment. What we can guarantee is the quality of the work, the honesty of the assessment and the fee agreed before we begin.
Direct answers, including the ones that are not what anyone wants to hear.
Funds almost never disappear without a trace: they travel through a chain of addresses and sooner or later reach a platform that has a compliance team and a duty to know its customer. That is the point where there is something to push against.
A card payment, a transfer or a crypto purchase. This leaves a banking trail — the most valuable document in a case.
The address the platform gave you. It often shows up in other complaints too, and that strengthens your position.
The amount is split and moved along a chain of addresses. A public blockchain records every step, so the chain can be reconstructed.
The exchange or swap service where the money is cashed out into currency. A platform like this has a compliance team, customer records and a duty to answer requests.
The report on the movement of funds is attached to the police report, to the request sent to the platform and to the court claim. After that the outcome turns on the law and the deadlines, not on negotiations with fraudsters.
The diagram is simplified and shows the principle, not a guarantee. Some chains end at platforms that never answer requests, and some funds are moved out faster than a report can be filed. That is why we look at your case first and only then say whether it makes sense to go further.
Correspondence, documents and the current status of your matter, available at any hour from a phone or a computer. Registration takes about a minute and costs nothing.
Only the lawyer assigned to your matter can see your file. Personal data is processed in line with the GDPR. Nothing is passed to anyone else except the documents you instruct us to file, and we never ask you for seed phrases, passwords or one-time codes.
Your matter is assigned to one person who knows the file. You deal with them directly rather than with a shared inbox or a rotating queue.
Statements, screenshots, transaction hashes and every document filed on your behalf are stored together and dated, so nothing has to be found again in a chat history.
What has been filed, what is waiting on a bank, regulator or police channel, and which deadline comes next, all visible without having to ask.
You set out the facts once, in your own time and in writing. We come back with specific follow-up questions rather than asking you to retell the whole story.
Describe what happened in two or three sentences and a lawyer will tell you which routes are open, which are closed, and what to preserve now. There is no charge for that and no obligation to go any further.
Client portal — messages with your specialist, documents and case status in one place.