EU FX Bank: A Cloned-Bank IBAN Claim Recalled at 88%

CLAIM · SAR-2026-0629 · VERIFIED & COORDINATED

An Amsterdam retiree transferred to “EU FX Bank,” trusting an IBAN and a banking licence that had been cloned from a real institution. He filed within days, and the coordinated partner reported an 88% return via SEPA recall.

1. Intake
2. Verification
3. Match
4. Coordination
5. Resolution

01 How the claim came in

The claim came in four days after his SEPA transfer. He had verified a “licence” and an IBAN that looked legitimate — both cloned. He sent one large transfer to an account he believed was EU FX Bank.

A clone-bank SEPA transfer caught within days is the textbook APP-recall case, and we moved with that urgency.

02 What we verified

The decisive step was proving the clone — the trusted IBAN did not belong to the named bank.

• Confirmed the operator against our EU FX Bank file and its cloned-licence pattern.
• Established the beneficiary IBAN did not match the legitimate institution’s details.
• Confirmed the SEPA transfer was a single, recallable bank-to-bank payment.
• Compiled the correspondence showing he was deceived into authorising it.

03 Connecting to a vetted partner

04 What SARFUND did

1. Documented the clone — the borrowed licence versus the real beneficiary — as the spine of the file.
2. Matched the claim to a vetted partner whose remit fit a SEPA/APP case.
3. Relayed the partner’s bank-facing requirements and helped him lodge a parallel dispute.
4. Tracked the intermediary-bank contact and staged recall the partner reported.

05 Red flags, in hindsight

• A “bank” whose licence you should verify on the regulator’s own site.
• An IBAN that does not match the institution’s official published details.
• Pressure to transfer quickly to “secure” a rate.
• A site identical to a known bank on a slightly different domain.