Case Results
10,000 Cases.
10,000 Wins.
Every case is different. Every outcome is the same — we get our clients their money back, their accounts restored, or their day in court. Here's what that looks like.
Anonymized Case Summaries
Real Cases. Real Outcomes.
After approving and funding the consumer's account, the institution froze access to the $500 that was transfered into the account only upon trying to use it afterwards, citing identity issues despite completing KYC during onboarding. The consumer suffered financial hardship. FinShield recovered the funds, secured additional compensation, and the institution updated its verification procedures following regulatory action.
Small business owner's BaaS account was closed citing 'AML compliance concerns' — with $112,000 in operating funds withheld. No suspicious activity existed. FinShield filed with the OCC and CFPB, and sent a demand letter documenting the institution's failure to implement adequate KYC at onboarding. Funds returned in full.
Freelancer's fintech account was frozen after a client payment triggered an automated flag. Debit card terminated without the required 30-day advance notice. FinShield's demand letter cited specific Regulation E and EFTA violations. Funds released, card restored, and statutory damages paid — all within 2 days.
Consumer's account was closed after a false-positive OFAC name match. Institution refused to reverse the decision despite the consumer providing documentation. FinShield filed with OFAC's compliance division and the CFPB. Account restored, funds returned, and the institution issued a formal written acknowledgment of error.
Consumer deposited funds with a fintech app that marketed FDIC pass-through insurance. When the app's partner bank failed, the consumer discovered the FDIC coverage had never been properly established. FinShield filed suit citing UDAAP violations and FTC Act misrepresentation. Full restitution recovered through settlement.
Consumer's account was flagged and frozen based on a KYC failure that occurred at the institution's own onboarding — not due to any action by the consumer. FinShield documented the institution's onboarding deficiencies and filed with the state banking regulator. Funds returned and the institution revised its onboarding procedures.
Consumer's neobank account was frozen without notice following a large direct deposit. Funds held for 6 weeks with no explanation. FinShield sent a targeted demand letter citing Regulation E violations and CFPB complaint rights. Account unfrozen and full balance returned within 38 days.
All case summaries are anonymized. Identifying details have been changed or omitted to protect client confidentiality. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Why We Win
We Know the Regulations Better Than They Do
Regulation E, BSA, AML, OFAC, UDAAP, EFTA — we know exactly which rules institutions are breaking and how to document it. Most institutions fold when they realize we've already built the case.
Demand Letters That Land
Our demand letters are not form letters. They are precisely targeted legal documents that cite specific violations, specific timelines, and specific consequences. Institutions take them seriously because they have to.
Regulatory Filings Create Pressure
A CFPB complaint, an OCC filing, a state banking regulator complaint — these create documented records that institutions cannot ignore. We use every available channel simultaneously.
We Go to Court When We Have To
95% of cases resolve before litigation. But when an institution refuses to act, we take them to court. We have never lost a case that went to trial. That record is not an accident.
Your Case Could Be Next.
Tell us what happened. We'll review it free, give you our honest assessment, and if we take it — we go to work. No fees until we win.