Claude G.

We thank Claude for identifying himself to us, which allowed us to review his complete file. We found that he was provided with all of the services specified in our Statement of Work, which he signed. Specifically, these services were a bank wire recall and a Cyber Intelligence Report. We sense, however, that Claude misunderstood the purpose of our Cyber Intelligence Report. It is not a recovery service. It is a compilation of research that identifies the individuals who own and run the beneficiary firm. The information it contains is indeed useful because it can assist attorneys in proving to the regulator and/or ombudsman that the bank was negligent in agreeing to wire money to beneficiaries engaged in illegal financial activities in the event the client's bank refuses to grant a recall. If that can be proven, the regulator and/or ombudsman will be held liable for Claude's loss and ordered to refund him. Indeed, his bank ultimately refused to approve the recall and refund the money he wired to the merchant because no funds remained in the merchant's account. We did not accept that as a valid excuse for the bank not to reimburse him. For that reason, we requested Claude's permission to transfer his case -- without any additional cost -- to a EU law firm that specializes in cybercrime in order to appeal the bank's decision to the relevant regulator and/or ombudsman. While the law firm may be "unknown" to Claude and "in an unusual location," it is known to and respected by the EU banking regulators whose decisions will determine the final disposition of cases such as this one. Regrettably, Claude has yet to agree to proceed. We urge him to reconsider his refusal to move his case to the attorneys, since he is only punishing himself by not doing so.