WhatsApp Trading Fraud: Can You Recover Money After Using a TAN and Bank Transfer?

WhatsApp trading scam victims facing rejected bank refund requests can evaluate specific legal paths based on authorization, recipient matching rules, and secondary cryptocurrency transfers, according to legal guidance published on October 10, 2026, by attorney Max N. M. Hortmann of HORTMANN LAW in Frankfurt am Main.

Assessing Bank Liability and Account Authorizations Under German Law

Victims who transfer funds to fraudulent trading groups often receive rejections from their financial institutions when requesting chargebacks. Hortmann Law notes that a transaction approved using a Transaction Authentication Number does not automatically mean a victim lacks potential claims, nor does it establish a blanket bank liability for investment losses. Under Section 675j paragraph 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB), a payment is effective against the payer only if the payer consented to it. However, a self-initiated transfer performed under false pretenses is not necessarily classified as an unauthorized payment simply due to the deception involved. Section 675w BGB separates technical authentication from wider evidentiary questions, meaning a bank’s rejection letter relying strictly on a recorded TAN must be measured against the actual sequence of events.

Impact of the European Recipient Verification Mandate

The legal framework surrounding bank transfers changed following the introduction of mandatory recipient verification rules across the eurozone on October 9, 2025. This mechanism checks whether an entered account name matches the designated IBAN, but it does not evaluate the underlying investment strategy or verify whether a recipient acts fraudulently. Hortmann Law emphasizes that a matching account name does not serve as a seal of quality for an investment, meaning there is no new blanket bank liability for all damages incurred over the past year. If an institution fails to perform the required verification or executes a transfer erroneously due to a procedural breach, Article 5c paragraph 8 of Regulation (EU) No 260/2012, introduced via Regulation (EU) 2024/886, provides a potential reimbursement pathway provided a direct link between the breach and the faulty payment exists.

Tracing Cryptocurrency Transfers Beyond Initial Bank Deposits

Many online investment schemes involve an initial bank transfer to an investor’s own account at a legitimate cryptocurrency exchange before digital assets are forwarded to an external wallet controlled by fraudsters. Hortmann Law points out that treating a standard bank deposit as a direct payment to the scammers creates an inaccurate picture of the transaction chain. The initial bank credit at a regulated exchange cannot be equated with the subsequent loss of assets transferred elsewhere. Evaluating these complex cases requires separating the bank deposit, the cryptocurrency purchase, and the subsequent wallet transfer using transaction identifiers and blockchain records to determine where liabilities lie among the involved platforms.

Data from the Deutsche Bundesbank indicates that recipient verification procedures specifically address the matching of account identifiers and account holder names rather than global transactions or subsequent digital asset movements.