Bank Impersonation

The majority of impersonation cases are prosecuted at the federal level because the institutions involved are typically federally insured or part of the interstate banking system.

• Prosecutors must prove the defendant knowingly executed a scheme to defraud a financial institution.
• The law covers both the attempt to defraud the bank directly and the attempt to obtain funds from innocent customers through misrepresentation.

We challenge the government's evidence regarding the knowing requirement. If a client was themselves manipulated into participating in a transaction without understanding its fraudulent nature, we argue the essential element of criminal intent is entirely absent.

When an impersonation scam involves the use of real people's names or credentials to gain access to accounts, prosecutors often add charges for aggravated identity theft.

• A conviction for federal bank fraud can lead to a prison term of up to 30 years and a $1,000,000 fine.
• Aggravated identity theft carries a mandatory consecutive two-year sentence that must be served on top of the underlying fraud conviction.

We litigate to strip these enhancements from the indictment. We argue that the use of a name was incidental to the transaction or that the client believed they were acting with the authority of the account holder, thereby removing the mandatory minimum sentence.

The year 2026 has seen a surge in vishing where scammers use AI to clone the voice of a trusted individual or a specific bank employee to authorize transactions.

• Attackers use deepfake overlays during video calls to impersonate bank officials and pass identity checks.
• Automated scripts probes APIs and imitate legitimate user behavior to blend in with normal banking traffic.

Our forensic team traces these digital fingerprints back to the origin of the call. We use this data to show that the victim was not negligent, but rather the target of military-grade social engineering.

The most common narrative involves a scammer calling to warn of an unusual transaction and instructing the victim to move their money to a safe account to protect it.

• Scammers instill a sense of urgency and fear, threatening account suspension or police intervention if the victim does not comply immediately.
• Victims are often told to stay on the line and are discouraged from independently verifying the information.

We utilize these coercive tactics in our defense and recovery strategies. We argue that the bank's failure to recognize these classic red flags—such as a customer suddenly emptying their account to a new, unverified recipient—constitutes a breach of the bank's own fraud prevention protocols.

Courts are increasingly examining whether banks have a duty to inquire when a customer gives an instruction that is inconsistent with the stated purpose or history of the account.

• Financial institutions may have a duty to warn if they know about a particular scam targeting a specific demographic.
• Failure to implement IBAN/name checks or transaction monitoring can lead to obligations for the bank to refund the payer.

Our litigation team leverages these failures to secure settlements. We demonstrate that the bank was in a superior position to prevent the loss and chose to prioritize transaction speed over client security.

The latest Payment Services Regulations (PSR) are moving toward extending liability to spoofing and impersonation fraud where the scammer mimics the bank's own communication channels.

• New mandates obligate service providers to provide robust transaction monitoring mechanisms based on behavioral analysis.
• Banks are increasingly required to provide clear indications on how to identify fraudulent attempts and share fraud intelligence with other institutions.

We use these evolving standards as a benchmark for negligence. If your bank did not follow the latest industry-standard fraud prevention strategies, we fight to have your lost funds reimbursed under the latest consumer protection regimes.

IP addresses and phone numbers can be spoofed, making digital evidence less reliable than the prosecution often claims.

• We use forensic accountants and experts to challenge the authenticity and credibility of the prosecution's evidence.
• Mistaken identity is a common defense in cases involving sophisticated online scams where the real actor remains anonymous.

Our team conducts an independent investigation to find the zombie computers or proxy servers that were actually used. We prove that our client’s devices were compromised, effectively turning the tables on the government’s narrative.

If a client acted under a genuine, though mistaken, belief that their actions were lawful, they cannot be guilty of fraud.

• The lack of intent defense applies when actions stem from misunderstandings or accidental errors.
• Duress may be a defense if the defendant was forced or threatened into committing the fraudulent act.

We gather all communications, emails, and transaction records to build a good faith narrative. We demonstrate that the client derived no profit from the scheme and acted only because they were deceived or coerced by the actual criminal masterminds.

Speed is the most critical factor in recovering stolen funds; once the money leaves the country, the chances of recovery drop significantly.

• We seek Mareva injunctions to freeze assets globally and prevent fraudsters from moving property.
• We argue for the imposition of a constructive trust over stolen property, ensuring that the fraudster cannot claim legal ownership of the assets.

Our litigation team maintains a network of international partners to follow the money wherever it goes. We use the discovery process to compel third-party providers to reveal the identities behind the anonymous wallets used in the scam.

Banks often refuse to help victims, claiming the customer authorized the scam. We break this stalemate by presenting a detailed legal demand that highlights the bank’s own security failures.

• We negotiate for remission where the bank uses insurance or internal funds to make the victim whole.
• We pressure institutions to admit their KYC (Know Your Customer) failures in allowing the fraudster's account to exist in the first place.

Our firm has a history of successful settlements with major banks. We ensure that the institution understands the reputational and legal cost of fighting a victim instead of helping them.