Reversal: possible in one system, not the other
A bank transfer is an instruction between institutions that both keep their own records. Those records can be amended, funds can be recalled while they remain in an account, and the payment sits inside a regulated framework that contemplates error and fraud.
A confirmed onchain transfer is not an instruction — it is a completed change to a shared ledger that no participant can unilaterally amend. There is no operator to call and no reversal mechanism to invoke. Everything that happens afterwards is about following the funds, not undoing the transfer.
Reimbursement rules
- UK bank transfers made by push payment fall within a reimbursement framework, with defined exceptions and time limits — your bank is the first port of call and should be told immediately.
- Cryptocurrency transfers sent from a self-custody wallet fall outside that framework entirely: there is no institution that owes reimbursement.
- Where funds left a UK bank account before being converted, the bank leg is still worth reporting on its own merits.
- Losses on an exchange account may be covered by that exchange's own policies, which are contractual rather than statutory.
Visibility: the one place cryptocurrency is easier
Bank transfers are private. Unless you are the bank, a court or an authority with a production order, you cannot see where the money went after it left. Victims are dependent on institutions choosing to share information.
Onchain transfers are the opposite: every hop is public and permanent. Anyone can follow them, which is precisely what makes independent tracing possible. The difficulty is not access to the data but interpreting it, clustering addresses correctly and identifying the terminal points.
What to do first, in each case
- Bank leg: contact your bank immediately, in writing where possible, and ask them to attempt a recall. Then report to Action Fraud.
- Cryptocurrency leg: preserve every hash and address, revoke wallet approvals if a drainer was involved, notify the receiving exchange, and report to Action Fraud.
- In both: capture the evidence before anything is deleted. Fake platforms disappear; chat accounts get closed.
- Then decide whether a trace is proportionate, based on where the funds went and how much is at stake.
Where the two paths converge
Most UK cases involve both legs: money leaves a bank account, is converted at an exchange, then moves onchain. That means two parallel actions — a reimbursement conversation with the bank, and a tracing exercise for the onchain portion. They are worth running separately rather than treating the loss as one event.
Any eventual return of cryptocurrency runs through lawful routes: an exchange acting on its own compliance obligations, law enforcement, or civil proceedings. Wallsec does not hold, handle or return client funds.
If you are looking at your own case rather than reading generally, our cryptocurrency investigation service explains how a case is scoped and worked, the asset tracing hub covers the network-specific work, and our overview of cryptocurrency scam recovery in the UK sets out what is realistic. Asset pages: USDT tracing, Bitcoin tracing and Ethereum tracing. You can also contact the investigations team directly.
Common questions
- Can my bank refund a cryptocurrency loss?
- It depends on where the fraud happened. If you were deceived into making a bank transfer, the bank leg may fall within UK reimbursement rules. If you sent cryptocurrency from your own wallet, there is no bank in the chain to reimburse you.
- Why can't an exchange just reverse the transaction?
- An exchange only controls its own internal records. Once funds leave to an external address, the transfer is on a shared ledger the exchange cannot amend. What it can sometimes do is freeze funds that arrive back into an account it controls.
- Is it worth reporting the bank leg if the loss was in cryptocurrency?
- Yes. The bank leg is a separate event with its own rules and its own record, and it produces documentation that supports the wider case.
- Does the public ledger mean I can find out who took my money?
- It shows where value went, not who controls an address. Attribution to a person normally requires information held by a regulated service, obtained through lawful process.
- Which one has better odds of a return?
- Statistically the bank leg, because the reimbursement framework exists. The cryptocurrency leg depends on speed, on where the funds settled, and on whether a regulated service still holds them.
Have a case you want reviewed?
We scope at intake and tell you honestly whether the onchain data supports a traceable case.