Chrysanthou Mylona 1-3030, Panaghides Building, Episkopi, Cyprus, 350
Room 2a 14/f Chun Wo Commercial Centre, 23–29 Wing Wo Street, Central, Hong Kong
Romance scam recovery is achievable through civil litigation, asset tracing, and criminal proceedings in European courts. Where a fraudster established a fabricated personal relationship through dating platforms, social media, or messaging applications and extracted money through false representations, financial requests, or fraudulent investment introductions, claims for fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment are available in all major EU jurisdictions. Where platforms failed to act on reported fake profiles under EU Digital Services Act obligations, regulatory complaints and civil claims are available against the platform. The European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) can freeze the fraudster’s accounts across all EU member states simultaneously. Recovery outcomes depend on the total amount transferred, the identifiability of the fraudster, the payment methods used, and the quality of preserved communications.
A romance scam is a fraud in which a criminal fabricates a personal relationship romantic or deeply personal with a victim over an extended period, for the purpose of extracting money through direct financial requests, fabricated emergencies, or the introduction of fraudulent investment opportunities.
The defining characteristic of a romance scam is the relationship itself: the fraudster invests significant time weeks, months, or in documented cases years in building emotional trust before making financial requests. This investment reflects the higher per-victim returns that emotional trust generates compared to transactional fraud. The victim believes they are helping or investing alongside someone they know and trust. The relationship is entirely fabricated.
Romance scams are not limited to romantic relationships. Documented cases involve fabricated friendships, mentorships, and professional partnerships any sustained personal relationship built on a false identity for the purpose of financial extraction. The legal basis for recovery is identical regardless of the relationship type: fraudulent misrepresentation by conduct the fabricated identity and false relationship are the misrepresentations that induced every financial transfer.
The fraudster creates a fabricated profile typically presenting as a successful, attractive professional: a European engineer working overseas, a military officer deployed abroad, a doctor working with an international organisation, or a wealthy entrepreneur. The profile uses photographs of a real person stolen from social media accounts and a constructed backstory designed to be credible and aspirational to the target demographic.
Initial contact is made through dating applications, social media platforms, or messaging apps frequently on platforms popular with the target’s demographic. The fraudster invests heavily in the relationship: daily communication, emotional support, shared interests, future plans. The victim develops genuine emotional attachment to a person who does not exist.
Once sufficient trust is established, financial requests begin typically framed as emergencies, temporary difficulties, or investment opportunities:
Each request is framed within the relationship context the victim is helping someone they care about, not making a payment to a stranger. Successive requests escalate in value, each reinforcing the prior investment and the relationship narrative.
In the most financially damaging variant, the relationship is used to introduce a fraudulent investment platform cryptocurrency trading, forex, or property investment. The fraudster demonstrates their own apparent success on the platform and guides the victim through initial small investments that show fabricated returns. The victim increases their investment. The platform dashboard shows growing wealth. When withdrawal is attempted, escalating fees, taxes, and compliance requirements prevent access to the funds. The platform and the relationship are both fraudulent. This variant sha zhu pan or pig butchering produces the largest individual losses among all romance scam types, with documented per-victim losses of USD 50,000 to USD 5,000,000.
A secondary fraud targeting victims who have already lost money to a romance scam. A fraudster often the same operator under a different identity contacts the victim presenting as a law enforcement officer, recovery specialist, or legal representative who can recover the lost funds in exchange for an upfront fee. The recovery service is fraudulent. The fee is misappropriated. Victims of romance scams are specifically targeted for recovery scams because they are known to have transferable funds and a demonstrated willingness to pay based on trust.
The fabricated identity, false relationship, and false representations made throughout the romance including false emergencies, false investment credentials, and false personal circumstances each constitute fraudulent misrepresentation by conduct. A fraudster who presented a false identity to induce emotional trust, and then exploited that trust to obtain financial transfers, has committed fraudulent misrepresentation for each transfer obtained. Claims entitle the victim to recovery of all amounts transferred plus consequential damages.
The extended duration of romance scams frequently means that misrepresentations were made in writing through messaging applications creating a documentary record of each false representation and each payment request. This written record is the strongest evidential foundation for fraudulent misrepresentation claims in all EU jurisdictions.
Where the fraudster received financial transfers to which they had no entitlement framed as loans, gifts, investments, or emergency assistance unjust enrichment claims are available independently of the misrepresentation claim. Each transfer for which the fraudster provided no genuine consideration no genuine relationship, no genuine investment, no genuine emergency is recoverable as unjust enrichment.
Under the DSA (Regulation 2022/2065), online platforms including dating applications and social media networks are required to implement measures against illegal content and activity, including fraudulent profiles. Very Large Online Platforms and Very Large Online Search Engines carrying VLOP or VLOSE designation are required to conduct systemic risk assessments specifically covering manipulation and fraud. Where a platform failed to act on reported fake profiles, failed to implement adequate identity verification for its user base, or failed to address known romance scam operations on its platform, DSA regulatory complaints and civil liability claims are available.
Romance scam fraud constitutes criminal fraud under national criminal codes in all EU member states. Where the fraud involved organised criminal networks as is the case in the majority of large-scale pig butchering operations criminal complaints engaging Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) and cross-border judicial cooperation under the European Investigation Order are the most effective investigative framework. Criminal investigations access platform account records, messaging application identity data, payment processor records, and IP address logs that are unavailable through civil proceedings alone.
Stop all communication with the fraudster and make no further payments under any circumstances including payments framed as the final step to release funds, resolve a legal issue, or fulfil a commitment to the relationship. Any continued communication provides the fraudster with opportunities to apply further pressure and extract additional payments. The recovery scam variant specifically exploits the moment of realisation fraudsters monitoring a victim’s growing doubt will introduce a recovery narrative before the victim takes independent action.
Save every message, photograph, video, and document exchanged with the fraudster across every platform used. Export full chat histories including timestamps and media files. Save all payment records, transfer confirmations, and any banking details provided by the fraudster. Do not delete any communications even those that feel personally embarrassing. The communication record is the primary evidentiary foundation for both criminal investigation and civil proceedings.
For bank transfers, request an immediate recall through your bank. For card payments, initiate a chargeback within 120 days of the transaction date. For cryptocurrency transfers, engage a specialist blockchain forensics provider on-chain tracing of cryptocurrency proceeds is most effective before funds are moved through mixing services or converted to fiat. For payments made through platform payment systems, file a dispute through the platform’s fraud reporting mechanism.
File a criminal complaint with the national cybercrime unit in the EU member state where the fraudster’s receiving account is held or where the platform through which contact was made is registered. In parallel, file a report with Europol’s EC3 particularly for pig butchering operations which are typically run by organised criminal networks operating across multiple jurisdictions. Provide the full communication record, all payment details, and every piece of identifying information provided by the fraudster including profile photographs, names, and contact details which may be traceable even where the identity was fabricated.
Report the fraudulent profile to the platform’s Trust and Safety team with full supporting documentation. For VLOP-designated platforms, use the platform’s designated illegal content reporting mechanism. Keep records of all reports filed and platform responses. Where the platform fails to act on a report of a clearly fraudulent profile, the report record is relevant to a subsequent DSA regulatory complaint.
Israeli Shimon Hayut, known as Simon Leviev, met women on Tinder between 2017 and 2019, posing as the son of a diamond billionaire. Flaunting a lavish lifestyle, he convinced victims to transfer money, claiming he was hiding from “enemies.” Individual transfers reached €100,000–€250,000, with the total damage estimated at several million euros. He was later sentenced in Israel to 15 months in prison.
Civil proceedings against the identified fraudster for fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment are available in all EU jurisdictions. The extended communication record in romance scam cases months of written misrepresentations typically provides a stronger documentary evidentiary foundation than shorter-duration fraud types. Civil proceedings achieve full recovery of all amounts transferred, compensatory damages, EAPO asset freezes across all EU member states, and disclosure orders compelling platforms, banks, and payment processors to produce account holder identity and transaction records.
Romance scam proceeds particularly from pig butchering operations accumulate over extended periods and are frequently still partially accessible within EU banking systems where action is initiated promptly. Forensic accounting and civil disclosure tools in EU proceedings can trace fund movements and identify assets. The EAPO under Regulation (EU) No. 655/2014 freezes accounts across all EU member states simultaneously on an ex parte basis without notifying the defendant where there is a documented risk of dissipation.
Regulatory complaints to the European Commission or the national Digital Services Coordinator for platforms that failed to act on reported fake profiles or failed to implement adequate fraud prevention measures create enforcement records and trigger supervisory investigation. For VLOP-designated dating platforms and social media networks, DSA systemic risk assessment obligations specifically cover romance fraud and manipulation creating a direct regulatory basis for complaints where platform measures were inadequate.
Where payments were made in cryptocurrency as is common in pig butchering operations specialist blockchain forensics can trace fund flows through wallet addresses to exchange accounts where proceeds were converted. Civil disclosure orders against regulated cryptocurrency exchanges in EU member states compel account holder identity records for identified wallet addresses. MiCA (Regulation 2023/1114) imposes AML and fraud reporting obligations on EU crypto asset service providers creating regulatory complaint channels for cryptocurrency romance scam losses.
Higher total transfer amounts justify more extensive recovery proceedings including cross-border asset tracing, EAPO applications, and coordinated criminal complaints. Cases involving multiple payment methods bank transfers, card payments, and cryptocurrency require parallel recovery strategies across each payment channel. The earliest payments in a romance scam are most likely to be recoverable through bank recall mechanisms; later payments through civil litigation and asset tracing.
Named individuals with identifiable assets in EU jurisdictions are the most viable civil defendants. Where the fraudster operated under a entirely fabricated identity, criminal investigation accessing platform account records, IP address logs, payment processor identity data, and device fingerprints is the primary identification tool. Romance scam operations that are part of organised criminal networks are most effectively addressed through coordinated criminal complaints engaging Europol.
The full communication record every message, every financial request, every false representation is the documentary foundation of the fraudulent misrepresentation claim. Written financial requests, fabricated emergency narratives, and investment platform introductions in the communication record establish what was represented, that it was false, and that the victim transferred funds in reliance on those representations. Incomplete records where communications were deleted before evidence preservation weaken the claim but do not close it where payment records establish the transfer amounts.
Romance scam recovery is legally possible the fabricated identity, false relationship, and every financial request made within it constitute fraudulent misrepresentation, and every payment made in reliance on those representations is recoverable as unjust enrichment. The extended communication record that characterises romance scams months of written misrepresentations and financial requests provides a stronger documentary evidentiary foundation than most shorter-duration fraud types.
The barriers to recovery are practical, not legal: the shame that delays reporting closes bank recall and chargeback windows; the emotional investment in the relationship makes the fraud harder to accept and act on quickly; and the cross-platform, cross-border nature of organised romance scam operations requires coordinated legal and criminal action to address effectively.
Acting promptly after identifying the fraud preserving all communications, initiating payment recovery, and filing criminal complaints determines whether the available recovery mechanisms remain open. Veritas Advisory Group handles these cases with full confidentiality and with an understanding of the personal circumstances that make romance scam recovery uniquely sensitive.
If you suffered financial losses through a romance scam involving European platforms or payment channels, contact Veritas Advisory Group to have your legal position assessed.
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.
