Rug pulls, phishing, fake investment projects: scams involving crypto assets are on the rise and leaving many of their victims without recourse. In 2026, what legal options are actually available? Here is our overview of the legal options available—as well as their limitations.
Fraud in the field of crypto assets has reached a significant proportion. From fake advisors and cloned platforms to organized call centers and AI-generated content, the methods are evolving rapidly, and losses can reach several hundred thousand euros. As of late November 2024, the average loss reported to the AMF (the authority to protect savings invested in financial products) for all types of financial scams was nearly €29,000.
Victims always ask the same question: is it possible to get your lost funds back? The answer is nuanced. The law does provide several options, but these are hampered by technical and international obstacles that greatly complicate procedures.
Fraud: the defining feature of crypto scams
In most cases, crypto scams fall under the definition of fraud, according to Article 313-1 of the French Penal Code. In other words, they involve obtaining funds through fraudulent means, such as using fake websites, fake platforms, or fake advisors.
This offence is punishable by up to five years in prison and a €375,000 fine. When committed by an organized criminal group, the sentences can reach up to ten years in prison and a €1 million fine.
The charges may vary depending on the circumstances. For example, they may include breach of trust, money laundering, or even extortion or illegal confinement in some particularly serious cases.
Filing a complaint: a crucial first step to take
In this situation, your first reflex should be to file a complaint. There are several ways to do so:
- through the THESEE platform for online fraud cases;
- at a police station;
- by contacting the local public prosecutor directly.
Alongside this, the PHAROS platform allows users to report fraudulent content, though it does not serve as a means of compensation.
If the circumstances warrant it, filing a complaint with a civil claim can provide significant leverage. It enables the initiation of a legal investigation and allows the examining magistrate to order thorough investigations, such as tracing blockchain transactions or issuing international letters rogatory.
The most difficult cases are now referred to specialized courts, particularly when they involve organized crime networks.
Freezing crypto-assets: A Race Against Time
Freezing or seizing assets is possible as long as the funds can still be located. In reality, everything depends on how swiftly actions are taken.
If the crypto-assets have already been transferred to multiple wallets or multiple blockchains, recovering them becomes significantly more difficult. The first few hours after the fraud are crucial for investigators and blockchain analysts to trace the transactions.
The possible liability of the bank
In many cases, the victims first transfer funds via bank transfer before they are converted into crypto-assets.
The bank’s liability then depends on the nature of the transaction.
If a payment is unauthorized or improperly executed, the French Monetary and Financial Code has a specific procedure in place, as long as the issue is reported within the prescribed time limits.
If the victim intentionally authorized the transfer—even if they were being manipulated—the debate centers on the bank’s obligations to exercise caution.
Recent legal rulings have confirmed that this duty still exists, but only in cases of blatant irregularities. The decisions handed down show, however, that the courts interpret this concept very strictly, thus limiting the possibilities for holding banks legally liable.
In certain cases, however, the most effective strategy remains to simultaneously pursue legal action against the perpetrators of the fraud and potentially take action against the bank.
The role of the AMF
The Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) primarily plays a preventive role.
Notably, it publishes:
- a list of unauthorized websites;
- a list of registered or authorized service providers;
- warnings for the general public.
These lists are a useful tool, but they are not exhaustive. A fraudulent website may appear before it is identified or may change its address regularly.
Why legal recourse remains difficult
Several obstacles remain, despite changes to the legal framework.
The first involves identifying the perpetrators. Blockchain transactions are traceable, but linking an address to an individual often requires going through a regulated platform or a banking institution.
The second obstacle is international. Frauds are often committed from less-than-cooperative legal jurisdictions, significantly slowing down investigations.
Finally, the speed of blockchain transfers is a major challenge. Funds can be fragmented and moved in a matter of minutes, while legal proceedings require much more time.
MiCA improves the framework but does not completely eliminate the risk of fraud
The complete implementation of the European MiCA Regulation increases the regulatory requirements for crypto-asset service providers (CASPs), particularly with regard to customer identification and anti-money laundering.
Combined with the TFR regulation on transfer traceability, this new framework facilitates the work of authorities in overseeing regulated entities.
However, it does not prevent the activities of platforms operating outside any regulatory framework.
What to keep in mind?
- Fraud remains the most common criminal charge in crypto fraud cases.
- Filing a complaint early increases the chances of recovering the funds.
- Asset seizure is possible but depends on how quickly action is taken.
- The bank may be held liable in certain cases, under strict conditions.
- The AMF provides information and issues alerts but does not compensate victims.
- The main challenges remain the anonymity of the perpetrators, the international nature of the networks, and the speed at which funds move.
Conclusion
French law keeps improving its tools to combat crypto-asset fraud, particularly through greater specialization among authorities and the implementation of the European MiCA framework. But even with these positive developments, prevention remains the best protection.
Before making any investment, it is recommended that you confirm that the service provider is among the authorized entities. Be wary of promises of unrealistic returns and never act under pressure to make a quick decision.
The French version of this article was written based on the expertise of HASHTAG avocats.
