- Suing a scammer in Europe requires identifying the correct jurisdiction and court, naming all viable defendants -corporate entities, beneficial owners, directors, and in documented cases payment intermediaries -and filing a properly structured claim that meets the strict procedural requirements of the national court.
- Asset preservation measures -freezing orders, the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO), and bank account blocking -must be filed simultaneously with or before the main claim to prevent the defendant from dissipating assets before judgment is enforced.
- Legal qualification of the claim -fraud, misrepresentation, breach of contract, or unjust enrichment -determines the available remedies, the burden of proof, and the procedural framework and must be selected based on the specific facts and the applicable national law.
- A court judgment alone does not recover funds -enforcement through asset searches, bank account seizures, and bailiff proceedings is a separate process that requires identifying the defendant’s assets and executing the judgment in the jurisdiction where those assets are located.
- Veritas Advisory Group manages civil litigation against scammers across all EU member states, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland -from jurisdiction selection and claim preparation through asset freezing, court proceedings, and judgment enforcement.
Step 1 -Determining Jurisdiction and Court
Jurisdiction Selection Criteria
The first and most consequential decision in any fraud litigation is selecting the jurisdiction and court in which to file. The relevant factors are: the country where the defendant is registered or domiciled, the country where the contract was performed or the harmful event occurred, and the country where the defendant’s identifiable assets are located. Under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) -Regulation (EU) No. 1215/2012 -the default jurisdiction is the member state where the defendant is domiciled. However, in fraud cases, the claimant may also bring proceedings in the jurisdiction where the harmful event occurred or where the contractual obligation was to be performed.Forum Selection in Cross-Border Cases
Where the fraud involves entities registered in one jurisdiction, operating from another, and holding assets in a third, strategic forum selection determines the practical enforceability of any judgment obtained. Filing in the jurisdiction where the defendant holds identifiable assets reduces the enforcement gap between judgment and recovery. Filing in the jurisdiction where the receiving bank account is located facilitates disclosure orders and account freezing. In complex cross-border schemes, parallel proceedings in multiple jurisdictions may be necessary -and must be coordinated to avoid jurisdictional conflicts under EU lis pendens rules.Consequence of Jurisdictional Error
Filing a claim in a court that does not have territorial or subject-matter jurisdiction results in the claim being dismissed -with costs awarded against the claimant. In fraud cases where speed is critical, a jurisdictional error delays the entire recovery process by months while a new claim is prepared and filed in the correct court. Professional jurisdiction analysis before filing eliminates this risk.Step 2 -Identifying All Defendants
Corporate Entities
The primary defendant in most fraud litigation is the corporate entity that received the victim’s funds, executed the fraudulent scheme, or entered into the contract under which the misrepresentation occurred. Corporate registration records -obtained from the relevant commercial register -confirm the entity’s legal name, registration number, registered address, and current status.Beneficial Owners and Directors
Where the corporate entity is a shell company, an SPV with no assets, or an entity likely to be dissolved or abandoned before judgment, claims against the beneficial owners and directors personally extend liability beyond the corporate vehicle. In EU jurisdictions, directors who participated in fraud, authorised fraudulent transactions, or caused the company to trade while insolvent can be held personally liable. Beneficial owners who controlled the fraudulent scheme through the corporate entity are named as co-defendants where their identity is established through corporate registry, beneficial ownership register, or disclosure order data.Payment Intermediaries
In documented cases, payment service providers, electronic money institutions, and banks that processed fraudulent transactions in breach of their anti-money laundering or payment services obligations are named as co-defendants or pursued in separate liability proceedings. Including payment intermediaries as defendants -where evidence supports a compliance failure -adds a regulated, solvent counterparty to the claim and increases the probability of recovery independently of the fraudster’s own asset position.Strategic Defendant Selection
Filing against multiple defendants -the corporate entity, its directors, its beneficial owners, and the relevant payment intermediaries -maximises recovery probability. If the corporate entity has no assets, the directors or beneficial owners may. If the individual defendants are unidentifiable, the payment intermediary presents a regulated target with capital reserves and insurance coverage. Professional defendant identification maps all viable recovery targets before the claim is filed.Step 3 -Building the Evidence Package
Required Evidence
European courts require a structured, documented evidence package -not a narrative account of the fraud. The evidence must include: payment records for all transactions -SEPA and SWIFT confirmations, bank statements, cryptocurrency TXIDs and wallet addresses, card payment records. All contractual documents -investment agreements, terms and conditions, invoices, platform registration confirmations. All communication records -email chains, messaging platform conversations, call logs, and contact details for all representatives. A chronological timeline of events -dates, amounts, and specific actions by the defendant at each stage. Evidence of misrepresentation -specific statements made by the defendant that were false, the medium through which they were communicated, and the reliance the claimant placed on them.Document Organisation and Translation
All evidence must be organised by category, numbered as exhibits, and cross-referenced to the specific factual allegations in the claim. Every document that is not in the language of the court must be translated by a certified legal translator. Courts in Germany require German. Courts in France require French. Courts in Spain require Spanish. Courts in Italy require Italian. Courts in the United Kingdom require English. Submitting untranslated evidence results in the evidence being excluded or the filing being returned -both of which delay proceedings during the critical early period when asset preservation is most effective.Step 4 -Legal Qualification of the Claim
Fraud and Misrepresentation
Where the defendant made false representations of fact -about their identity, regulatory status, investment performance, or the nature of the product or service -that induced the claimant to transfer funds, the claim is grounded in fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation. Fraud claims typically carry the highest evidentiary burden -requiring proof that the representation was false, that the defendant knew it was false or was reckless as to its truth, and that the claimant relied on the representation to their detriment -but also provide the broadest remedies including compensatory and in some jurisdictions punitive damages.Breach of Contract
Where a contract existed -an investment agreement, a purchase contract, a service agreement -and the defendant failed to perform its obligations, a breach of contract claim recovers the value of the contractual performance that was not delivered. Breach of contract claims carry a lower evidentiary burden than fraud claims -requiring proof of the contract, the breach, and the resulting loss -and are appropriate where the fraud operated through a legitimate-looking contractual framework.Unjust Enrichment
Where the defendant received funds from the claimant without legal justification -or where the legal basis for the payment has failed because the promised consideration was never provided -an unjust enrichment claim recovers the amount by which the defendant was enriched at the claimant’s expense. Unjust enrichment claims are available in all EU jurisdictions and are particularly effective where the contractual relationship is void or unenforceable.Importance of Correct Qualification
The legal basis of the claim determines the burden of proof, the available remedies, the applicable limitation period, and the procedural framework. Misqualifying a fraud claim as a simple breach of contract -or pursuing unjust enrichment where fraud is provable -may limit the available remedies or apply a less favourable procedural regime. Professional legal analysis of the facts determines the optimal qualification before the claim is drafted.Step 5 -Preparing the Statement of Claim
Content and Structure
The statement of claim -the formal document initiating court proceedings -must include: full identification of the claimant and all defendants, a factual account of the events in chronological order, the legal basis for the claim with reference to applicable statutory provisions, the quantum of the claim -the total amount sought including principal, interest, and consequential damages -and a complete list of supporting evidence referenced by exhibit number.Compliance with National Procedural Rules
The form, structure, and content requirements for a statement of claim are strictly regulated by national procedural law -and vary significantly between EU member states. A claim that does not comply with the procedural requirements of the specific court in which it is filed is returned for correction or rejected. Professional claim preparation ensures compliance with the procedural rules of the target jurisdiction before filing.Step 6 -Court Fees and Litigation Costs
Court Fee Payment
Civil proceedings in all European jurisdictions require payment of a court fee -calculated as a percentage of the claim value or as a fixed amount depending on the jurisdiction and the court. A claim is not accepted for processing until the court fee is paid. In Germany, court fees are calculated on a statutory scale based on the claim value. In the United Kingdom, fixed fees apply up to defined thresholds with percentage-based fees above. In France, court fees are generally lower but additional costs apply for enforcement proceedings. In Spain, court fees vary by court type and claim value.Additional Litigation Costs
Beyond court fees, litigation costs include legal representation, certified document translation, expert reports where required, and enforcement costs. In the majority of EU jurisdictions, the losing party bears the reasonable legal costs of the prevailing party -meaning that a successful claimant recovers court fees and a substantial portion of legal costs from the defendant as part of the judgment.Step 7 -Filing the Claim
Filing Methods
Claims are filed through the mechanism prescribed by the relevant court: through a registered lawyer or advocate in jurisdictions where legal representation is mandatory, through electronic court filing systems where available, or by physical submission to the court registry by post or in person. In Germany, France, Spain, and Italy, legal representation by a locally admitted lawyer is mandatory for most civil claims. In the United Kingdom, claimants may file certain claims directly but legal representation is strongly recommended for fraud litigation.Court Assessment and Acceptance
Upon filing, the court reviews the claim for compliance with formal requirements -jurisdiction, standing, completeness of documentation, and court fee payment. Where the claim meets all requirements, the court issues a case number and serves the claim on the defendants. Where formal deficiencies are identified, the court issues a request for correction -and the claim is not served until the deficiencies are resolved.Step 8 -Asset Preservation Measures
Freezing Orders and the EAPO
Asset preservation is the most time-critical element of fraud litigation. A freezing order -filed simultaneously with or immediately before the main claim -prevents the defendant from moving, transferring, or dissipating assets while the case proceeds. The European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) under Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 freezes the defendant’s bank accounts across all EU member states simultaneously on an ex parte basis -without prior notice to the defendant. In the United Kingdom, a worldwide freezing injunction achieves equivalent protection through the High Court.Timing and Ex Parte Application
Freezing applications in fraud cases are made without notice to the defendant -because notifying a fraudster that their assets are about to be frozen guarantees that the assets will be moved before the order takes effect. The EAPO and national freezing order applications are prepared in parallel with the main claim and filed at the earliest possible moment. Every day of delay between claim filing and asset freezing reduces the probability that the defendant’s accounts still hold recoverable funds.Disclosure Orders
In parallel with freezing applications, disclosure orders compel banks, payment institutions, and other financial service providers to produce account holder identity records, transaction histories, and current account balances for identified accounts. Disclosure orders are critical where the fraudster’s full asset position is not known -the bank records reveal additional accounts, related entities, and fund flows that expand the scope of recovery.Step 9 -Court Proceedings
Procedural Stages
Civil proceedings in European courts follow a structured sequence: exchange of written submissions -the claimant’s statement of claim and the defendant’s defence. Disclosure and evidence exchange -production of documents relevant to the dispute. Oral hearing -presentation of arguments and evidence before the judge. Judgment -the court’s decision on liability and quantum.Timeline Expectations
Standard civil proceedings in EU jurisdictions take 12 months or longer from filing to judgment. Complex cross-border fraud cases involving multiple defendants, multiple jurisdictions, and contested evidence may take significantly longer. However, interim measures -freezing orders, disclosure orders, and EAPO applications -operate on an expedited timeline, securing assets and producing critical information while the main proceedings develop.Default Judgment
Where the defendant fails to file a defence within the prescribed period -common in fraud cases where the defendant abandons the entity or is uncooperative -the claimant may apply for default judgment. Default judgment awards the claimed amount without a full trial, significantly accelerating the path to enforcement.Step 10 -Judgment Enforcement
Asset Identification
A court judgment is a legal instrument -it does not automatically transfer funds. Enforcement requires identifying the defendant’s assets -bank accounts, real property, vehicles, business interests, receivables -and executing the judgment against those assets through the enforcement mechanisms available in the jurisdiction where the assets are located.Enforcement Mechanisms
Enforcement of a civil judgment in EU member states is executed through bailiffs or enforcement officers who seize bank account balances, garnish wages and receivables, attach real property, and sell moveable assets to satisfy the judgment. Under the Brussels I Regulation (Recast), a judgment obtained in one EU member state is enforceable in all other member states without a separate recognition procedure -enabling cross-border enforcement where the defendant’s assets are located in a different jurisdiction from the court that issued the judgment.Post-Judgment Asset Tracing
Where the defendant’s assets are not immediately identifiable, post-judgment asset tracing -through court-ordered disclosure, financial investigation, and specialist asset search services -locates accounts, property, and business interests against which the judgment can be enforced. Professional enforcement management ensures that a successful judgment translates into actual fund recovery.Key Risks in Fraud Litigation
Inability to identify the defendant -where the fraudster operated anonymously through shell structures and nominee directors, identification may require preliminary disclosure orders or criminal investigation before civil proceedings can name a specific defendant. Absence of recoverable assets -where the defendant has dissipated all funds, enforcement produces no recovery regardless of the judgment obtained. Offshore structures -assets held outside EU and UK jurisdiction may require separate recognition and enforcement proceedings in the offshore jurisdiction. Extended timelines -complex cross-border litigation can extend over years, during which the defendant’s asset position may deteriorate. Professional pre-litigation assessment evaluates these risks before proceedings are initiated -determining whether the claim is commercially viable, whether identifiable assets exist, and whether the expected recovery justifies the litigation costs.Parallel Recovery Channels
Civil litigation operates most effectively alongside parallel recovery channels. Criminal complaints to national cybercrime and financial crime units unlock investigative tools -platform record orders, IP address disclosure, bank information requests -that identify defendants and trace assets more quickly than civil disclosure alone. Regulatory complaints to financial authorities trigger supervisory investigation of the entities involved and create enforcement pressure. Bank recall and freeze requests secure funds at regulated institutions while litigation proceeds. Professional recovery management coordinates all channels simultaneously -each one supporting and accelerating the others.Frequently Asked Questions
Summary
How to Sue a Scammer in Europe
Suing a scammer in Europe is a structured legal process that requires precise execution at every stage -jurisdiction selection, defendant identification, evidence preparation, legal qualification, claim filing, asset freezing, court proceedings, and judgment enforcement. European courts operate with strict procedural formalism. Errors in jurisdiction, documentation, or procedure result in rejection, delay, or dismissal -each costing time during which the defendant’s asset position deteriorates.
Asset preservation is the most time-critical element. Freezing orders and EAPO applications must be filed at the earliest possible stage -before the defendant moves funds beyond the reach of European court orders. Parallel criminal complaints and regulatory notifications unlock investigative tools that support and accelerate the civil proceedings.
If you have been defrauded by an entity operating in Europe and want to pursue civil litigation and asset recovery, contact Veritas Advisory Group to assess your legal position and initiate proceedings in the relevant jurisdiction.
Veritas Advisory Group provides professional legal and advisory services to victims of investment and trade fraud in Europe. This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
