Cryptocurrency fraud
Transfers made to an exchange, wallet or investment platform that turned out to be controlled by the person who introduced it — and a transaction record that, unlike most fraud, still exists.
Cryptocurrency matters have a feature that other investment fraud does not: a permanent, public record of where the value went. Every transfer on a public blockchain is recorded, timestamped and traceable onward through subsequent transactions. That does not make funds recoverable, and it should not be presented as though it does. What it does mean is that the factual question — where did the money actually go — can often be answered with precision rather than inference.
That matters because the answer frequently leads somewhere with obligations. Funds moved to a major exchange arrive at a regulated business with identity records, compliance duties and a legal address. That is a materially different situation from funds sitting in an unhosted wallet, and the difference usually determines whether anything can realistically be done.
It also means that time is a live factor. The record itself is permanent, but the point at which funds become identifiable at a regulated institution is not, and neither is that institution’s ability to act on information it receives.
What this usually looks like
These matters most often involve one of the following structures:
- A fake exchange or trading platform. Deposits credited to an interface showing growing balances, with withdrawals conditional on a payment that never completes the process.
- A wallet-connection or approval scheme. A site that asked you to connect a wallet and sign a transaction, after which assets were transferred out by a spending approval you did not understand you were granting.
- An investment or “mining” program. Fixed or compounding returns on deposited cryptocurrency, paid initially from later deposits.
- A token or presale that did not exist as described. Funds raised against representations about a project, a team, an audit or a listing that were false.
- A long-relationship investment scam. Frequently described as “pig butchering”: weeks or months of ordinary conversation before an investment is ever mentioned, then a platform introduced as something the other person uses themselves.
- Impersonation. Someone presenting as a major exchange’s support desk, a wallet provider, a regulator, or a public figure, usually contacting you first.
- Conversion at your own expense. You were guided to buy cryptocurrency at a legitimate exchange in your own name and then send it on, which is what makes the first leg of the transfer look unremarkable to your bank.
The questions that decide whether there is a claim
Where did the funds go, and where are they now? Transaction hashes and wallet addresses allow the path to be followed. The practical question is whether it terminates at an identifiable service — an exchange, a payment processor, a custodian — or disperses into wallets that belong to no one identifiable.
Did a regulated institution handle any part of it? Exchanges and payment providers operate under identity-verification and anti‑money‑laundering obligations. Where funds reached one, there may be records, a legal process for obtaining them, and in some circumstances a basis for a claim against the institution itself.
What was actually represented, and by whom? Fraud claims turn on representations. Chat logs, platform screenshots, whitepapers and promotional material are the evidence; the absence of any identifiable person behind the representations is itself a finding.
Was the platform required to be licensed? Offering investment products, custody or exchange services is a regulated activity in most jurisdictions regardless of whether the asset is cryptocurrency. Operating without that permission is a fact with legal consequences.
Which jurisdiction, and whose law? Cross-border is the norm here rather than the exception, and it affects everything: where a claim can be brought, what can be obtained by way of disclosure, and whether any judgment could be enforced.
What we look at first
Before anyone can say whether there is a claim, the facts have to be established from records rather than recollection. In a matter of this kind that usually means:
- Every transaction hash, and the wallet addresses you sent from and to
- The exchange or wallet you used to acquire and send the cryptocurrency, and its transaction records
- Screenshots of the platform showing your balance, your deposits and any withdrawal attempt
- All messages — Telegram, WhatsApp, Signal, in-app chat, dating or social platforms — exported where the app allows it
- The website addresses and any app you were asked to install, including how you were asked to install it
- Any request for a fee, tax or clearance payment before withdrawal, with the exact wording
- Bank and card records for the fiat leg, where there was one
Where it is appropriate, blockchain analysis can establish the path of funds and identify the services that received them. That analysis is a factual foundation for legal steps — it is not itself a recovery mechanism, and it should never be sold as one. Any service that offers to “trace and recover” cryptocurrency for an advance fee, particularly one that approached you after the loss, should be treated with considerable caution.
Cryptocurrency matters
Transactions on public blockchains are recorded permanently and can be followed from address to address. Traceable is not the same as recoverable: following the path tells you where value went, not whether anyone can compel its return. Where the path ends at a regulated exchange, tracing can support a legal step. Where it disperses, often it cannot.
Be extremely careful, particularly if they approached you rather than the other way round. Advance-fee recovery fraud specifically targets people who have already lost cryptocurrency, and the lists of those people are bought and sold. A genuine professional will explain what can and cannot be established, will not promise a result, and will be identifiable and regulated where they claim to be.
Being guided to buy cryptocurrency in your own name before sending it on is a deliberate feature of the structure, not a sign that the loss was voluntary. It defeats the checks a bank would otherwise apply to an outbound payment, which is precisely why it is done that way.
A demand for a payment before release is one of the most consistent features of these matters, and the payment does not release anything — it is followed by another. Please do not send it. That includes demands framed as tax, anti‑money‑laundering clearance, insurance, conversion or account upgrades.
Not necessarily. The blockchain record does not expire, and limitation periods for fraud can run from discovery rather than from the transaction in some jurisdictions. Practical prospects do tend to narrow with time, which is a reason to get an assessment rather than a reason to assume there is none.
These answers are general. They do not take account of your facts, your jurisdiction, or any deadline that may apply to your situation.
Tell us what happened.
A case review is confidential and carries no obligation. We will tell you honestly whether we think there is anything to pursue.
Confidential. No obligation. Contacting the firm does not create an attorney‑client relationship.