International trade fraud is deception in cross-border trade — forged documents, fraudulent parties, non-existent suppliers, CEO fraud. At Musch Legal, we see growing trade fraud involving deepfake emails and detailed social engineering. Speed is crucial: within 48 hours, much can be salvaged through global seizure measures and bank notifications. Waiting almost always means a loss.
What is the legal problem? (What forms of fraud do we see?)
Trade fraud ranges from classic forged documents to modern CEO fraud via deepfake voice and email. At Musch Legal, we see payment redirection (forged invoices with different IBANs), CEO fraud (instructions for urgent transfers), supplier impersonation, and invoice fraud. Rapid intervention via banks, the police, and civil seizure is decisive. Internationally, legal routes and cooperation between police services vary.
What does the law say? (What frameworks apply against fraud?)
Under Dutch law: Article 326 of the Criminal Code (fraud), Article 225 of the Criminal Code (forgery), Article 322 of the Criminal Code (embezzlement), Article 420bis of the Criminal Code (money laundering). Under civil law: Article 3:44 of the Dutch Civil Code (fraud), Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code (tort). For attachment: Article 700 of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure (preservative). Under English law: Mareva injunction under Civil Procedure Rules Part 25. For international criminal cooperation: Europol and Eurojust. For banks, AML reporting obligation under the Wwft.
For cyber fraud, additionally the Computer Crime Acts and NIS2.
Step
Time pressure
Action
1. Warn bank
Within 24-48 hours
Recall payment via SWIFT GFM
2. File police report
Within 72 hours
Under Article 326 of the Criminal Code
3. Precautionary attachment
Within a week
On fraudster's assets
4. EAPO bank accounts
Within 10 days
Freezing in the EU
5. Civil proceedings
Within 14 days after attachment
Main claim
Step
Time pressure
Action
1. Warn bank
Within 24-48 hours
Recall payment via SWIFT GFM
2. Police report
Within 72 hours
Under Article 326 of the Dutch Criminal Code
3. Precautionary attachment
Within a week
On fraudster's assets
4. EAPO bank accounts
Within 10 days
Freezing in the EU
5. Civil proceedings
Within 14 days after attachment
Main claim
What risks do companies face? (What threatens in the event of a missed response?)
Proceeds from fraud are typically funneled to inaccessible jurisdictions within 24-72 hours. Speed is everything. For banks, fraud protocols (SWIFT GFM Global Funds Management) often apply, allowing payments to be reversed provided this is done within 24 hours. Civil recovery against the fraudster is often impossible (no assets, false identity). For reputational damage: discreet handling is crucial. Insurance: cyber policies often provide coverage.
Practical example from our practice (How did we recover 1.8 million euros?)
Musch Legal was consulted by a Dutch company following a CEO fraud incident: the financial manager had transferred 1.8 million euros to a Hong Kong account based on a deepfake email from 'CEO'. We coordinated within 24 hours: bank alert with SWIFT GFM procedure, police report under Section 326 of the Dutch Criminal Code, Hong Kong counsel for local seizure, and a parallel Mareva injunction in London for further financial flows. Result: 1.4 million euros recovered within 6 weeks. Without swift action, almost certainly a total loss.
What can you do? (What crisis response are you building?)
Implement a fraud protocol with clear responsibilities and escalation. Train employees on CEO fraud and social engineering. Build dual control for payments above the threshold. Maintain cyber insurance. In the event of an incident: engage the bank, police, and lawyer within 24 hours. Document everything for insurance and criminal proceedings. Engage Musch Legal for a crisis response team for your company.
Deception by foreign contracting parties