Search

How can we help?

Icon

Victim of fraud? How to identify the perpetrator

Every day companies and individuals lose money to fraudsters, who hack into email accounts and alter emails sent from companies to their customers, or send sophisticated phishing emails from fake domain names designed to dupe customers into believing they are from a trusted supplier. Often, the emails will say that bank details have been changed, and that customers should make payment of a genuine invoice into a new account, which in reality is an account controlled by the fraudster.

Once the customer has transferred the funds, the money is usually quickly transferred on or withdrawn by the fraudster, leaving the customer little opportunity to reverse the transaction and retrieve their money.

When asked to identify the individuals behind the accounts used in these scams, banks will typically refuse to help, citing confidentiality and data protection obligations. But it is possible to force a bank to disclose identity details and transaction records via court order.

A ‘Norwich Pharmacal’ order (“NPO”) is a type of court order which compels an innocent third party (often a bank) who is mixed up in wrongdoing to disclose information that will assist the victim in identifying the wrongdoer, or obtaining information which is necessary to bring a claim against the wrongdoer. To obtain an NPO, it is necessary to issue a claim against the bank or other third party holding the information, accompanied by a detailed witness statement setting out the fraud which has occurred, the information required and why it is needed. A hearing before a judge will then take place, which can be arranged at very short notice where time is of the essence.

The court has a discretion as to whether to make an NPO, and will need to be satisfied that there is clear evidence of wrongdoing, that the information requested is required by the victim and cannot be obtained any other way, and that the bank or other third party is involved in the wrongdoing and is not merely a witness to it.

When asked to identify the individuals behind the accounts used in these scams, banks will typically refuse to help, citing confidentiality and data protection obligations. But it is possible to force a bank to disclose identity details and transaction records via court order.

It is also necessary for the victim to agree to pay the bank’s costs of responding to the claim and complying with the order, and to agree to compensate the bank in the event that it suffers any loss if it later transpires that the order should not have been made.

Often, banks will take a neutral position in relation to applications for NPOs where there has been fraud i.e. they will not consent to the order sought, but will not oppose it either. An application to freeze any remaining funds in the relevant accounts can be made alongside the application for a NPO, although it may be too late to retrieve any funds if too much time has passed from the date of the fraud.

Obtaining an NPO requires some intensive work on the part of the victim and its lawyers and is not a cheap exercise; however an order can usually be obtained in a matter of days and in a large scale fraud, can be key to stopping the fraudster in their tracks and retrieving stolen funds.

Disclaimer
This information is for guidance purposes only and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. Please refer to the full General Notices on our website.

Author profile

About this article

Read, listen and watch our latest insights

Pub
  • 09 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

The Arbitration Act 2025 – Factsheet

This factsheet outlines the major reforms and key developments introduced by the Arbitration Act 2025, including updates on summary disposal, jurisdictional challenges, emergency arbitrators, arbitrator disclosure duties, and governing law in arbitration proceedings.

art
  • 09 July 2026
  • Immigration

Right to Work Checks are changing from 1 October 2026: Is your business ready?

The Home Office’s new rules, effective 1 October 2026, will overhaul right to work checks and raise the risk of civil penalties for UK businesses.

art
  • 08 July 2026
  • Privacy and Data Protection

ICO prosecutes employee under the Data Protection Act for forwarding client data to his personal email address

The issue of employees taking confidential business information or personal data when moving to a new employer remains a significant concern for businesses.

Pub
  • 07 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Accelerating arbitration: Expedited procedures and key changes in the new ICC Rules – Episode 2

In episode 2, Jack Hobbs (Clarkslegal) and Christopher Howitt (Three Stone) explore how the latest expedited and highly expedited procedures under the ICC Arbitration Rules 2026 are transforming the landscape of dispute resolution.

art
  • 07 July 2026
  • Employment

6 month unfair dismissal rights: What employers need to know

Under the new Employment Rights Act 2025 the minimum period of service required to qualify to bring a statutory claim for unfair dismissal has been reduced from 2 full years to 6 months from 1 January 2027 onwards.  

art
  • 02 July 2026
  • Litigation and dispute resolution

Litigation and Artificial Intelligence: Where are we now?

In the recent case of Cork and another v Smith, the High Court publicly admonished a law firm and two of its solicitors after they had produced and submitted two AI-generated letters to the court containing misleading and false information in relation to a block transfer application made under Rule 12.37 of the Insolvency (England and Wales) Rules 2016.