Most clients need one of these. Some need two. Here is precisely what each involves, and what it cannot do.
When money has been wired, transferred or paid to a fraudster, we establish where it went and pursue every lawful route to bring it back — before it moves again.
Where tracing and negotiation are not enough, we go to court — building the civil case needed to freeze assets, compel disclosure and enforce judgment.
Crypto is not as untraceable as scammers rely on. We follow stolen funds on-chain, identify the exchange holding them, and apply legal pressure to freeze and recover.
An independent read on a scheme, adviser or platform — before you commit further funds, or after something has started to feel wrong.
No. Nobody can, and any firm promising it before reviewing your file is telling you something useful about itself. We assess the facts first and give you a candid read on recoverability before any engagement is discussed.
[State your actual fee model here: fixed review fee, hourly rate, contingency or a blend. Be specific and put numbers on it. This is the most-asked question in the sector and vague answers read exactly like the scams clients are already afraid of.]
[Describe your jurisdictional reach and referral-counsel network. Name the jurisdictions you can actually act in, and be explicit about where you instruct local counsel instead.]
It depends heavily on where the funds are and how quickly you reach us. Freezing requests are measured in days and are strongly time-sensitive; contested litigation can run for months. You get a realistic timeline after the initial assessment, not before it.
Then we say so at the assessment stage and you pay nothing further. Being told early that funds are unrecoverable is a worse outcome than recovery, but a far better one than paying to chase them for another year.
Freezing requests and exchange holds are most effective in the days immediately after a loss. A first review costs nothing.