- Service Areas / Investment & Quick Yield
Liquidity Mining
- Investment & Quick Yield
How These Cases Work
Yield and staking products promising returns that were never achievable.
The most technical fraud we handle, and the least understood by victims.
01
The Returns Were Never Possible
You are shown a pool paying a rate far above anything conventional, with an interface displaying your position growing daily. Sometimes you are walked through the setup by someone who has become a trusted contact — these cases frequently overlap with long-running relationship fraud.
Funds are removed either immediately or once deposits reach a worthwhile size. Withdrawal attempts meet a required fee, a minimum threshold, or an unlocking payment.
02
What an Investigation Involves
Actionreclaims Investigations
We begin with what the contract actually did, as distinct from what the interface displayed. Which permissions were granted, when they were exercised, and what moved as a result.
From there we trace the outflows to the addresses controlling them and follow those funds onward. We also examine the deployment: who created the contract, what it was based on, and whether the same code appears in other cases — recycled contracts are common, and a match links your case to others.
You receive a technical record of what happened, the fund trail, and a plan for which platforms and authorities to approach.
- Inside an Investigation
Our Process
Four stages, in the order we work them.
Contract Interaction Review
Establishing what you authorised and when it was used.
Pool Outflow Analysis
Tracing deposits out of the pool to the controlling addresses.
Operator Clustering
Linking deployment addresses to other cases and known operations.
Evidence File
Technical documentation formatted for platforms and investigators.
- Clients
In their own words
“I didn’t understand what I’d approved. They explained it in a way that finally made sense, then showed me where it went.”
Stefan
Austria
4.9 Rating
"The person who introduced me to the pool disappeared with it. Both halves were investigated together."
- FAQ
Common Questions
No. Approval screens are deliberately opaque and unlimited permissions are the default in a great many interfaces. Being deceived into authorising something is not the same as consenting to it, and the technical record supports that.
Yes, and do this first: revoke outstanding approvals on any wallet involved, using a reputable revocation tool. Until that is done, any address still holding permission can act again at any time.
The display was generated by the platform. Your deposits were real and traceable; the returns shown against them generally were not.
No — it is common, and we treat it as one investigation. The relationship and the contract are two parts of the same operation, and both are examined together.
Less often than bank-based fraud, and we would rather say so plainly. Where recovery is possible it is usually because funds reached an exchange that holds records. The assessment tells you which situation you are in before you spend anything.