EFRI & The Cybercrime Tsunami
Cybercrime is the new plague of the online age. Scammers systematically destroy people’s financial situations and lives. The authorities are doing far too little to protect people and take action against scammers. Organizations such as the European Fund Recovery Initiative EFRI, an officially recognized NGO in the field of victim protection and fund recovery, have been pioneers in victim protection in the area of cybercrime since 2017. As an advocate for victims, EFRI has already recovered a significant amount of money for victims of scam-facilitating financial institutions.
Unfortunately, there are also many unscrupulous providers who want to exploit the desperation of victims to make money. Unfortunately, this includes many law firms riding the cybercrime tsunami. One of those law firms seems to be the Amsterdam based BarentsKrans.
As reported by FinTelegram, BarentsKrans is alleged to have acted in an unethical and possibly unprofessional manner in court proceedings brought by EFRI on behalf of victims of online trading scams. This could mean that the victims represented by EFRI may not be able to recover the millions they lost to scammers.
The News in 90 Words
In its fight for justice for victims, EFRI has filed a disciplinary complaint with the Haagse Orde van Advocaten against top-tier Dutch firm BarentsKrans and partner William Schonewille. The Bar has acknowledged receipt and assigned the matter to its supervisory board (file number undisclosed). EFRI alleges conflict-of-interest concealment, abrupt withdrawal on the eve of a deadline, and retention of unearned fees in a mass-fraud appeal against ING subsidiary Payvision. More than 600 retail victims are left without counsel.
What the Complaint Says
| Allegation | Detail (EFRI version) | Compliance Lens |
|---|---|---|
| Concealed conflict | BK partner Arno Voerman earlier advised Payvision; firm allegedly sought Payvision’s permission before taking the brief. | Art. 7 NOvA Code: former-client conflicts are non-waivable without full disclosure. |
| Procedural sabotage | Firm pushed for a 3-month delay, then walked away 5 days before filing deadline, citing “trust issues.” | Care-of-client duty – timing alone may constitute “manifestly improper conduct.” |
| Retainer misuse | €30k “fixed fee” accepted; zero work product delivered; offer to refund only 50 % if criticism deleted. | Possible unreasonable fee + breach of honour code (Gedragsregel 17). |
| Misrepresentation | BarentsKrans allegedly told the client no conflict existed after checking internally. | Duty of candour – mis-statements to a client = disciplinary offence. |
Read our report EFRI v BarentsKrans here.
Why Regulators Should Care
While EFRI pursues justice for scam victims with official recognition and a strong international reputation, a growing number of shady or outright fraudulent “fund recovery experts” are preying on the desperation created by the cybercrime tsunami. These so-called recovery services represent one of the most insidious forms of cybercrime—striking twice by exploiting already devastated victims, draining them both financially and emotionally.
Likely Next Moves
- In the EFRI v BarentsKrans Case, the Dutch Haagse Orde will decide whether to open formal disciplinary proceedings; average investigation cycle: 6-12 months.
- Civil malpractice suit remains on the table; EFRI hints at damages for 600+ victims.
- Regulatory ripple: Dutch Financial Supervision Office could examine lawyers’ trust-accounts under Wwft (AML) obligations once money-flows are exposed.
Report Malpractice
If you have any information about legal malpractice in the funds recovery context, please share it with us via our whistleblower page, Whistle42.
