About Us
Although our experienced team will look to complete your case (recover a substantial part if not all of your lost funds) as soon as possible, each case is unique. On average this process takes from 3 months to a year.
Fortifyphoenix provides the tools you need to pursue your case in the form of a detailed Investigation Report that includes a suggested Action Plan for you to follow.
We believe that a question like that is best answered by the company's clients. We invite you to check out the hundreds of great reviews by our clients to verify that we are a legitimate and reputable organization. We are also registered with the Israeli justice department, as well as this our staff will happily forward you the relevant credentials.
No, our services do not include court representation. But, our methods of recovering your lost money involve Alternative Dispute Resolution outside of court in order to speed up things.
So we deal with the banks and relevant agencies that made the relevant transaction. We found this is a far more effective means of securing the recovery of the funds.
It doesn't matter where you are based, our team can help you get your money back. So if you have the relevant documentation needed, we can help you regardless of your location.
Identity & Access
Not necessarily. Being deceived into authorising something is treated differently from authorising it freely, and many banks and card schemes have specific provisions for it. Whether a claim succeeds often comes down to how well the deception is documented — which is the part we can help with.
Later is harder, not hopeless. Card chargeback windows are limited and worth checking immediately, but payment trails stay traceable long after the deadline for a dispute has passed, and the evidence still supports a police report or a claim.
Yes, always, and ideally before contacting us. We work alongside law enforcement reporting rather than replacing it, and our reports are built to be usable by investigators.
No. Funds are moved between accounts and platforms specifically to break the trail, and following those chains is the ordinary work of an investigation rather than an obstacle to it.
Take it to your bank or card issuer to support a dispute, to a regulator or ombudsman, to the police as part of a report, or to a solicitor if you're pursuing a civil claim. It's built to be used by all four.
Not usually. Authorised push payment fraud is recognised as its own category, and in a number of jurisdictions there are reimbursement rules that apply specifically to it. Banks decline on first application routinely. What tends to change the outcome is evidence showing how the deception was staged and where the funds went.
Caller ID is straightforward to falsify and there is no verification behind it. The same applies to SMS sender IDs, which is why a fraudulent message often appears in the same thread as real ones from your bank. This is worth documenting in a claim, because it undermines any suggestion that you should have spotted it.
Immediately, if the payment was recent. Funds are moved onward within hours, and the realistic window for stopping money at the receiving bank is short. That said, tracing remains possible long afterwards, and a claim or police report is still worth pursuing once the money has moved.
Yes. Invoice redirection works on the same principle and we handle it the same way. These cases often involve a compromised email account somewhere in the chain, which is worth establishing early since it affects both the claim and whether it is likely to happen again.
Sometimes partly. We can usually establish which accounts received the money and what connects them, and occasionally that leads somewhere identifiable. More often it produces something better for your purposes: evidence that the accounts belong to a network, which is what banks and police act on.
Yes. A good number of the people who contact us aren't sure, and finding out is straightforward — where the money went, and whether the accounts receiving it behave like a person's or like a network's. If the answer is that everything is as you were told, that's a useful thing to know too.
Not through us. Cases are handled by one named contact, details are never published or used in marketing, and we only approach a bank, the police, or anyone else at your instruction. This applies whether or not you decide to go ahead after the assessment.
No. Payments made under deception are treated differently from ordinary ones, and there are established routes for pursuing them — through your bank, through the payment provider, and in some jurisdictions through specific reimbursement schemes. What matters is how well the deception is documented, which is the part we handle.
Don't block them yet, and don't confront them. Both make the investigation harder — ongoing contact sometimes produces useful information, and a confrontation tends to end with accounts being closed. Tell us at the assessment and we'll advise on timing.
Project & Platforms
Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and we will tell you which at the free assessment rather than taking a case that costs more than it recovers. What often makes small cases worthwhile is that they connect to larger patterns — the receiving account rarely has only your payment in it.
Partially. Gift cards are harder than bank transfers because redemption is fast and often anonymous, but the codes were redeemed somewhere and that leaves a record. Be aware upfront that these are among the harder cases.
Don't pay it. There is no prize, and each payment simply establishes you as someone who pays. Keep the messages — they are useful evidence — and get in touch before sending anything further.
Usually from a data breach or a purchased list rather than anything you did. Part of the investigation looks at how you were reached, which occasionally identifies the source and is worth knowing since it predicts further approaches.
Quite possibly. People who have paid once are frequently re-approached, sometimes by supposed recovery firms offering to get the money back. We never make contact first, and we never ask for payment in cryptocurrency.
Not if the exit was engineered, and that distinction is what an investigation establishes. Liquidity removed in a single coordinated action, into wallets prepared beforehand, looks nothing like a project running out of money.
Sometimes, at least partially. Complete anonymity is difficult to maintain across domain registrations, exchange verification, hosting, and earlier projects. We are honest about how far this is likely to go before you commit.
Considerably. A combined file documenting many losses carries far more weight with exchanges and authorities than individual reports, and it spreads the cost. If you are in contact with others, mention it at the assessment.
Often, for that portion. Mixing is genuinely effective and we will tell you when a trail has ended rather than bill you to keep looking. Frequently only part of the capital is mixed, and the remainder stays traceable.
Sooner is better, but these cases stay workable longer than most. Operator wallets often sit dormant for months before funds move to an exchange, and that later movement is frequently the point at which a case becomes actionable.
Very likely. Delayed withdrawal is standard practice precisely because it obscures the cause. Part of the investigation is establishing that link, which matters for both a platform request and a police report.
For reversal, yes — no private firm can undo a confirmed transaction, and anyone claiming otherwise is not being honest with you. For tracing, no. The transaction is a permanent record, and following it is exactly what we do.
No. Layering and bridging are done specifically to break the trail, and following those chains is routine investigative work rather than an obstacle.
Submit it to any exchange the funds reached, file it with the police, take it to a solicitor for civil action, or use it to support an insurance claim where applicable.
Yes, and to a new wallet with a newly generated recovery phrase on a device you trust. If the old phrase was exposed, everything secured by it remains at risk indefinitely.
Quick Yields
Very. These relationships are built over months and are genuinely felt, and doubt is the usual state of mind when people first contact us. An assessment is a way of finding out rather than committing to a conclusion — if the payments went where you were told, we will say so.
No. Cases are handled by a single named contact, nothing is published or used in marketing, and we approach nobody without your instruction. We work on cases in this category regularly and the sums involved are rarely small.
That is normal and not a problem. Bank and card statements let us rebuild the sequence, and partial records are enough to start.
Partially, in some cases. Recent payments are more recoverable than old ones, bank transfers more than cash, and funds that stopped at an identifiable institution more than those that did not. We give you a realistic view at the assessment rather than after you have paid for an investigation.
Almost certainly not. In most of these cases the dashboard is software the operator controls and the figures are typed in. The useful question is not what the balance said but where your actual deposits went — that part is real and traceable.
No. No legitimate platform requires a payment to release your own money. This is the stage where losses usually double, and if you are being asked for one now, stop before paying and get in touch.
Unfortunately not — it is a standard part of the method. Small early payouts are funded from your own or other clients' deposits, specifically to build confidence before a larger deposit.
Don't confront them or mention an investigation, but don't disappear either. Ongoing correspondence sometimes produces useful detail. Tell us at the assessment and we will advise on how to handle it.
Sometimes. Offshore registration makes it harder, not automatically impossible — the money still moved through banks and processors that have obligations. What matters is where the funds landed, not where the website claimed to be.
No. Approval screens are deliberately opaque and unlimited permissions are the default in a great many interfaces. Being deceived into authorising something is not the same as consenting to it, and the technical record supports that.
Yes, and do this first: revoke outstanding approvals on any wallet involved, using a reputable revocation tool. Until that is done, any address still holding permission can act again at any time.
The display was generated by the platform. Your deposits were real and traceable; the returns shown against them generally were not.
No — it is common, and we treat it as one investigation. The relationship and the contract are two parts of the same operation, and both are examined together.
Less often than bank-based fraud, and we would rather say so plainly. Where recovery is possible it is usually because funds reached an exchange that holds records. The assessment tells you which situation you are in before you spend anything.
Request Consultation
An analyst reviews your case and comes back within 48 hours with an initial read on whether the money is traceable and which recovery routes are open. Free, and commits you to nothing.
Yes. Case details are handled by one point of contact and are never shared or published without your consent. This applies whether or not you go ahead after the assessment.
Choose "Not sure" and tell us what happened in the message. A good share of enquiries come from people who don't yet know — working that out is part of the free assessment.