Practice
Platform disputes and frozen accounts
A platform stops processing withdrawals, freezes a wallet, or gives no reason for a blocked account. This practice covers the dispute that follows. The paid first assessment maps what the platform's own terms and the applicable law actually allow, before any letter goes out.
When this practice applies
Clients come to us after a trading platform, exchange, or investment app stops honouring a withdrawal request, locks an account without a stated reason, or relies on a term changed after the funds were already committed to justify the freeze. The money is visible in the account balance but cannot be moved. Support has stopped answering, or answers with template replies that ignore the specific request.
The same practice covers cases where the platform's counterparty has simply gone silent rather than issuing a formal refusal, leaving the client unable to tell whether the position still exists. It sits within the broader category of refusal to perform on private investments.
What the paid first assessment produces
The paid first assessment produces a written analysis of the account documentation, the platform's terms as they stood when the funds were deposited, and any later amendments the platform relies on. It sets out what has actually been established, what remains unverified, and what a formal demand would need to state to be enforceable rather than merely angry.
It does not produce a promise that funds will move. It produces the basis on which a decision to proceed, or not, can be made with facts instead of hope.
How the work is scoped
Scope depends on what already exists in writing. That includes the account agreement, the terms in force at deposit, any correspondence in which the platform gave or withheld a reason, and the jurisdiction the platform claims to operate under. Where the platform is a corporate structure rather than a single entity, scope also depends on which entity actually holds the funds, a question the platform's own disclosures rarely answer directly.
Where the dispute involves an equity stake rather than a cash balance, the work connects to the practice handling dilution and stake disputes, since the underlying questions of ownership and consent overlap.
Where this practice hands over
Once the domestic steps available on the documentation are exhausted, the file moves to litigation or arbitration, or to enforcement against an existing judgment or award where one already exists. Which route applies depends on what the account agreement specifies and where the platform or its assets are located, questions this practice answers before handover.
Criminal conduct, if it surfaces during review, raises a separate question from the civil recovery claim and is flagged for referral, not absorbed into this file.
What we do not take on
We do not take on claims where the only complaint is investment performance, or where no documentation exists beyond a login screen and a balance figure. We do not pursue funds directly through intermediaries, and we do not accept instructions where the client expects an assured result rather than a legal process.
Work outside this scope sits under other practices in the service index. No fee arrangement here depends solely on the outcome achieved, and the firm's registration can be checked independently through the guide to verifying a law firm.