Scammed by bank transfer? Sue the scammer's account holder in Spain

The case, in five lines

What is brought

Action for restitution of a payment wrongly received (arts. 1895 to 1901 of the Civil Code) against the holder of the account that received the money, joined with the non-contractual liability claim under art. 1902 of the Civil Code where he lent the account negligently and, in the alternative, with the unjust enrichment claim. It is preceded by a freezing order obtained before the claim is filed.

Before which court

The civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first-instance court) for the domicile of the defendant account holder, which is also the court competent to grant a freezing order requested before the claim (art. 723 of the Civil Procedure Act). Appeals go to the Audiencia Provincial (the provincial appeal court).

Deadline

The restitution claim becomes time-barred five years after the transfer (art. 1964.2 of the Civil Code); the compensation claim under art. 1902, one year after you learned of the loss and of who the holder is (art. 1968.2 of the Civil Code). Both periods are interrupted by an out-of-court demand or a request to negotiate, and a criminal case over the same facts interrupts them until you are notified that it has closed. With a prior freezing order, twenty days to sue from its grant (art. 730.2 of the Civil Procedure Act), suspended once the request to negotiate is sent (art. 7.3 of Organic Law 1/2025).

Who can bring it

Claimant: whoever ordered the transfer and lost the money, whether an individual or a company. Defendant: the holder or joint holders of the receiving account and, if the money moved on to other accounts, the holders of each one that can be identified. The liability of the banks (yours, if it did not offer you Verification of Payee or the check failed, or the one that opened the account) is a separate front, with a different claim and different evidence.

Financial risk

If the claim is dismissed, you pay the other side's costs unless the case raised serious doubts of fact or law (art. 394 of the Civil Procedure Act). The freezing order requires security and, if the claim is not filed in time, it is lifted with an order for costs and liability for the loss caused (art. 730.2 of the Civil Procedure Act). The real risk is not losing the case but winning it against someone with no assets: that is why assets are investigated and frozen first.

The account holder is liable even if he is not the one who deceived you

Article 1895 of the Civil Code is blunt: when someone receives something he had no right to collect and which was wrongly delivered by mistake, an obligation to return it arises. It does not require the recipient to have deceived anyone, nor even to have known where the money came from. The account holder is not sued as a fraudster but because his account received money you did not owe him, and for the main claim that is enough.

The law also allocates the burden of proof in your favour. Article 1901 presumes there was a mistake when what was delivered was never owed, and leaves it to the recipient to prove that it was a gift or that there was some other just cause. Article 1900 adds that, if the holder denies receiving the money, once you prove the delivery you are relieved of any further proof. A bank certificate confirming the credit carries more weight than any narrative.

Restitution is not the whole case. If the holder lent his account to strangers for a commission, the claim under article 1902 for loss caused through fault or negligence is joined, and if he acted in bad faith, article 1896 obliges him to pay statutory interest and the losses caused until you recover what is yours. Unjust enrichment, which the case law treats as subsidiary, is pleaded only in the alternative, should the main claim fail (art. 71.4 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Five years or one: the deadline depends on the claim you bring

The restitution claim is a personal action with no specific limitation period, so it becomes time-barred five years after repayment could be demanded (art. 1964.2 of the Civil Code), which in practice is the day of the transfer. The article 1902 claim is time-barred one year after the injured party learned of it (art. 1968.2 of the Civil Code), and the courts count that year from when you know of the loss and are in a position to know whom to sue. Suing only for negligence stakes the case on a period five times shorter.

Here is the trap almost nobody sees. Since 9 October 2025 your bank checks the payee's name against the IBAN before you authorise the order, and if the name is a close match it shows you the real holder's name. That information helps you identify him, but he will use it to argue that you knew who he was from the day you discovered the fraud. To be safe, count the year from that day, not from when the police confirm his identity.

Both periods are interrupted by an out-of-court demand (art. 1973 of the Civil Code) and by the request to negotiate, from the date on which the attempt to deliver it is recorded (art. 7.1 of Organic Law 1/2025). The criminal case for the fraud interrupts them too: the count starts again when you are notified of the final decision closing it. And dismissal of the case or acquittal of the holder does not extinguish the civil claim, unless a final judgment declares that the event from which it could arise did not exist (art. 116 of the Criminal Procedure Act).

Finding out who the holder is: what you already have and what your bank owes you

Start with what you already have. A Spanish IBAN tells you which bank holds the account: after “ES” and the two check digits, the next four digits identify the institution. The Verification of Payee result, the name the fraudsters gave you, the receipts and the screenshots establish from day one whom you are pursuing. If you paid by Bizum (Spain's mobile payment service), the recipient's phone number is linked to a bank account and the reasoning is the same. And if your bank did not offer you Verification of Payee or the check failed, your first target may be your own bank.

Article 59.2 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018 provides that, where the identifier supplied is incorrect, your bank must make reasonable efforts to recover the funds, the payee's bank must cooperate by passing all relevant information on to your bank and, if the funds are not recovered, your bank must give you, upon your written request, the information it holds that is relevant to bringing a legal claim. If the IBAN did not belong to the payee you thought you were paying, ask for it in writing. If the bank refuses, complain to its customer service department and then to the Banco de España (the Spanish central bank).

If none of that is enough, two routes remain. Pre-action disclosure (diligencias preliminares) under article 256 of the Civil Procedure Act serves to prepare a case, but it does not expressly cover asking a bank to reveal who holds an account, and not every court accepts such a request; it does not require a prior negotiation attempt (art. 5.3 of Organic Law 1/2025). The other is the criminal case, which identifies the holder authoritatively. If you know his name but not where he lives, the claim can be filed with a formal statement to that effect and a request that the court trace his address (arts. 264.4 and 156 of the Civil Procedure Act).

The freezing order: granted without hearing him, with a twenty-day deadline that can be suspended

Article 727.1 of the Civil Procedure Act allows a freezing order (embargo preventivo) to secure a judgment ordering payment of money, and article 728 requires three things: showing the risk that the judgment will come too late, providing prima facie evidence that allows a provisional finding in your favour, and lodging security. An account used to receive scam money is the textbook example of that risk. If you also prove urgency, or that hearing him first would jeopardise the measure, the court may grant it without hearing him, by an order issued within five days against which there is no appeal (art. 733.2).

It pays to be realistic about what it catches. Scam money usually leaves the account within hours, and a civil freezing order rarely arrives in time to reach it. What it does reach is the holder's own assets, because restitution is his personal debt: other accounts, the attachable part of his salary, a vehicle, a tax refund. It is carried out like the attachments made in enforcement proceedings, but without obliging him to disclose his assets (art. 738.2 of the Civil Procedure Act), so they must be identified. That is why they are investigated beforehand, and the firm works with a private investigator when needed.

A measure granted before the claim starts a clock: if the claim is not filed within twenty days of its grant, it is lifted, with an order for costs and liability for the loss caused (art. 730.2 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since the claim first requires a negotiation attempt, the law coordinates the two: if the freezing order was granted before negotiating, those twenty days are suspended when the request is sent and resume when the negotiation ends without agreement (art. 7.3 of Organic Law 1/2025). That is why the request goes out on the very day the order is executed.

Pre-action negotiation with someone who will not answer

In civil matters, article 5 of Organic Law 1/2025 makes it a condition for admitting the claim that an appropriate dispute resolution method (MASC) was tried first, with the subject of the negotiation matching what is claimed. It applies to the claim against the holder. It does not apply to a freezing order requested before the claim, to pre-action disclosure or to the enforcement claim to collect on the judgment (art. 5.3). And direct negotiation between the parties or between their lawyers is enough.

With a holder who does not respond, the requirement is still met. The request must define its subject (the transfer, the amount, the restitution sought) and be sent to his known home or workplace (art. 7.1). It is proven with a document showing that he received it, on what date, and that he could access its full content (art. 10.2): a burofax (a Spanish certified letter) with certified content. Thirty calendar days after receipt with no meeting and no written answer, the negotiation ends without agreement (art. 10.4) and there is one year to sue (art. 7.3).

If he does not collect the burofax, not every court gives the same weight to the notice of attempted delivery, which is why the request is duplicated through another verifiable channel. Without the document proving the attempt, or without the formal statement where his address is unknown, the claim is ruled inadmissible (art. 403.2 of the Civil Procedure Act). The negotiation has two further useful effects: it interrupts the limitation period and, if the holder refuses it without just cause, he will not be awarded costs even if he later wins (art. 394.1 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Money mule, accomplice or good-faith seller: what the holder will argue

The first defence is “I knew nothing, I answered a job offer”. It does not help him against restitution, which does not depend on his good faith: good faith only spares him the interest and losses under article 1896. It does matter for the article 1902 claim, and there a test that the Criminal Chamber of the Tribunal Supremo (Spain's Supreme Court) has applied to these cases carries weight: wilful blindness, where someone who could and should have known chose not to ask. A fixed commission, unknown senders and onward transfers within minutes are the signs a civil court also looks at.

The second is “I no longer have the money, I passed it on”. The Civil Code only limits the liability of a good-faith recipient to the extent of his enrichment where a specific, identified item is concerned (art. 1897), and money is not such an item, so having passed it on does not release him by itself. But a court that sees the holder as another blameless victim will be reluctant to make him bear everything, and what tips the balance is his account statements: who paid in, when it left and where it went.

The third is the most serious: “I was paid for something I sold”. Fraudsters use the victim's money to buy cryptocurrency from an individual on a peer-to-peer exchange platform, or a product advertised online, and the seller receives your transfer believing it is his buyer's payment. Article 1901 allows him to prove that just cause, and the courts do not decide this scenario uniformly. The record of the trade, the chat with the buyer and the price compared with the market rate decide whether there was a real sale or an alibi, and that is worth knowing before suing.

How we run the case, step by step

1. 1

   The first hours: your bank and the criminal complaint

   Ask your bank to request a recall of the transfer from the receiving bank and a hold on the balance. Report the fraud with the IBAN, dates and amounts: we draft the complaint, asking for the holder to be identified and the account blocked. And do not sign any waiver of restitution.

2. 2

   Ask in writing for the information needed to sue

   Your bank is asked in writing for the information it holds that is relevant to bringing a legal claim (art. 59.2 of Royal Decree-Law 19/2018), and the Verification of Payee result is kept. If it does not answer or refuses, a complaint goes to its customer service department and then to the Banco de España (the Spanish central bank).

3. 3

   Identify the holder and look at his assets

   With what the bank, the criminal case or pre-action disclosure provides, his name, identity document and address are established. At the same time his assets are investigated: accounts, salary, vehicles, property. If no assets are in sight, the case is assessed before going further.

4. 4

   Freezing order without notice

   It is requested from the civil section of the Tribunal de Instancia (the first-instance court) for his domicile, before the claim and without hearing him, with proof of the transfer and of the deception, offering whatever security is set. It needs no prior negotiation, and the procurador (court representative) follows its execution closely.

5. 5

   The request to negotiate, the same day

   As soon as the freezing order is executed, the request to negotiate is sent to him by burofax (a Spanish certified letter) with certified content, setting out the transfer, the amount and the restitution sought. It suspends the twenty-day period under art. 730.2 of the Civil Procedure Act and interrupts the limitation period.

6. 6

   Claim for restitution and compensation

   Once the negotiation ends without agreement, the claim is filed within the remaining days, with restitution as the main claim, the art. 1902 claim joined, unjust enrichment in the alternative, interest and costs. When judgment is given, it is enforced without delay.

The law that applies

• Art. 1895 CC. Whoever receives something he had no right to collect, which was wrongly delivered to him by mistake, is obliged to return it. It is the basis of the main claim against the account holder, and it does not require proof that he took part in the deception. BOE-A-1889-4763
• Art. 1901 CC. It presumes a mistake in payment where what was delivered was never owed or had already been paid, and allows the recipient to prove that the delivery was made as a gift or for another just cause. That is where the case against a holder who claims to have sold something is decided. BOE-A-1889-4763
• Art. 1964 CC. Personal actions with no specific limitation period are time-barred five years after performance of the obligation can be demanded. It is the period for the restitution claim, which starts with the transfer. BOE-A-1889-4763
• Art. 1968 CC. The action to enforce liability arising from the fault or negligence referred to in article 1902 is time-barred after one year, counted from when the injured party learned of it. It is the period for compensation against whoever negligently lent the account. BOE-A-1889-4763
• Art. 730 LEC. Interim measures are normally requested with the claim, but may be requested earlier if reasons of urgency or necessity are alleged and proven. In that case they lapse if the claim is not filed before the same court within twenty days of their grant, with an order for costs against the applicant and liability for the loss caused. BOE-A-2000-323
• Art. 733 LEC. As a rule, an interim measure is decided after hearing the defendant. If the applicant proves urgency or that a prior hearing may jeopardise its effectiveness, the court may grant it without hearing him, by an order issued within five days against which there is no appeal, served after the measure is executed if it cannot be served earlier. BOE-A-2000-323
• Art. 7 LO 1/2025. A request to negotiate that defines its subject interrupts the limitation period from the date the attempt to deliver it is recorded, and the count restarts if within thirty calendar days there is no meeting and no written answer. After a negotiation without agreement there is one year to sue, and if interim measures were granted before negotiating, their twenty days to sue are suspended and resume under those same rules. BOE-A-2025-76
• Art. 59 RDL 19/2018. An order executed in accordance with the unique identifier is deemed correctly executed. If the identifier is incorrect, the payer's bank must make reasonable efforts to recover the funds, the payee's bank must cooperate with the relevant information and, if they are not recovered, the payer's bank must give the payer, upon written request, the information it holds that is relevant to bringing a legal claim. BOE-A-2018-16036

Each article checked against the consolidated text published in the BOE (the Spanish official gazette).

Frequently asked questions