Author: Javier Rueda, Associate, Litigation Department
“The importance of acting strategically from the moment the complaint is filed in order to strengthen the criminal investigation.”
Fraud is one of the property crimes that most frequently affects both individuals and companies, causing direct harm to their assets. However, its consequences go beyond the economic sphere: in some cases, assets or money may eventually be recovered, but the time invested, the broken trust, the emotional toll, and the uncertainty that accompanies a criminal investigation also form part of the damage experienced by victims.
These situations typically arise because victims place their trust in investment promises, currency exchange transactions, businesses, or services that appear legitimate but end up causing significant financial losses and, in some cases, serious personal and commercial consequences.
Faced with this situation, it is common for victims to believe that filing a criminal complaint is sufficient for the authorities to identify the perpetrator, recover the lost money, and obtain a conviction. However, the reality of criminal proceedings shows that a thorough investigation is required — one that does not depend solely on the actions of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, but also on the active and timely participation of the victim from the earliest stages of the process.
In my professional experience, it has become clear that many investigations are weakened because the victim waits too long to file a complaint or makes mistakes that hinder the gathering of evidence, allowing the perpetrator to conceal assets or limiting the chances of achieving effective redress for the harm caused.
Below, I present five of the most common mistakes observed in fraud investigations that can compromise the development of the process if not addressed in a timely manner.
1. Waiting too long to file a complaint
One of the most common mistakes is allowing weeks or even months to pass before approaching the competent authorities. In many cases, the victim holds on to the hope that the perpetrator will fulfill their promises, return the money, or regularize the situation — unnecessarily prolonging a wait that ultimately benefits the offender.
While each case must be assessed individually, the passage of time can significantly hinder the investigation, as during that period evidence may be lost, relevant documents may disappear, electronic conversations may be deleted, computer records may be altered, bank accounts may be closed, or assets that could later have served to guarantee reparation of the harm may be transferred.
Acting promptly does not mean acting hastily — it means allowing the investigation to begin when the chances of obtaining useful evidence and adopting timely measures are greatest. A complaint filed immediately and without delay facilitates the reconstruction of events and expands the tools available to the authorities responsible for the investigation.
2. Failing to properly preserve evidence
The most frequent mistake victims make is assuming that, once the complaint has been filed, it will fall exclusively to the Public Prosecutor’s Office to reconstruct the facts and gather all the evidence needed to prove the existence of the crime. However, while the functional direction of the investigation rests with the Prosecutor’s Office, the information and documentation retained by the victim is often the starting point for establishing the facts of the case.
In fraud cases, it is common for much of the evidence to be of a documentary or digital nature: payment receipts, bank transfers, conversations through messaging applications, emails, social media posts, photographs, recordings, invoices, and any other records related to the transaction can become highly relevant evidentiary elements during the investigation.
It should be noted that properly preserving evidence does not simply mean keeping documents — it also means ensuring their integrity, authenticity, and traceability. The more complete and organized the information provided from the outset of the investigation, the greater the chances of reconstructing the events, identifying those responsible, and supporting the corresponding procedural actions.
It is recommended that from the moment there is a suspicion of having been a victim of fraud, all available documentation and information should be safeguarded, conversations should not be deleted, devices containing original evidence should be preserved, digital files should be backed up, and records should be organized chronologically — all of which will provide a stronger evidentiary foundation for the development of the investigation.
3. Assuming that filing a complaint alone will guarantee some recovery of the money
The most common expectation among fraud victims is the belief that simply filing a criminal complaint will automatically lead to the recovery of the lost money or assets. While the complaint is the first step in activating the intervention of the authorities, it does not by itself ensure the restitution of the affected assets.
The purpose of criminal proceedings is to investigate the facts, identify those responsible, and, where appropriate, obtain a sanction in accordance with the law. However, achieving a conviction does not always mean that the economic harm will be remedied immediately. In many cases, by the time the investigation advances, the accused has already concealed, transferred, or disposed of their assets, making it considerably more difficult to enforce any future reparation of the damage.
Precisely for this reason, the Code of Criminal Procedure provides mechanisms designed to preserve the assets linked to the accused during the course of the proceedings, whether through precautionary measures such as preventive annotation on registered assets, attachment, seizure, retention of funds, and other legally authorized measures, whose purpose is to prevent assets from disappearing before a final decision is reached.
The adoption of these measures must respond to the particular circumstances of each case. Their importance lies in seeking to preserve the effectiveness of any eventual judgment and ensuring, to the extent possible, that the victim has assets against which reparation of the harm can be enforced.
In practice, it is common for victims to focus all their efforts on advancing the criminal investigation while neglecting the protection of the accused’s assets. By the time a favorable resolution is finally obtained, the assets are often no longer in the accused’s name, have been transferred to third parties, or are insufficient to cover the financial harm suffered.
In addition to promoting the progress of the investigation, it is advisable to assess from the earliest stages of the process whether it is appropriate to request the precautionary measures applicable to each case. A legal strategy focused on asset protection can significantly increase the chances of obtaining reparation for the harm caused.
4. Failing to actively collaborate during the investigation
Another frequent mistake is assuming that, once the complaint has been filed, the victim’s participation has ended and that the progress of the investigation will depend exclusively on the competent authorities. While the functional direction of the investigation rests with the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the victim’s collaboration remains an element of great importance for the proper clarification of the facts.
As the investigation develops, new information may come to light, witnesses may be identified, additional documentation may be obtained, or information regarding the assets, address, or activities of the accused may be discovered. In many cases, it is precisely the victim who has access to these elements or who can identify relevant circumstances that may guide new investigative steps.
It should be remembered that a criminal investigation is a dynamic process. Information that initially appears irrelevant may, as the investigation progresses, acquire decisive value in establishing the existence of the crime, identifying those responsible, or locating assets that could guarantee future reparation of the harm.
It is entirely normal for the victim, during the course of the investigation, to recall new information or become aware of relevant facts related to the accused. These elements, even if they seem of little importance in isolation, may prove decisive in guiding new investigative steps or strengthening the theory of the case.
With this in mind, the victim’s participation does not end with the filing of the complaint. Following up on the process, maintaining ongoing communication with their attorney, promptly reporting any new developments, and cooperating with the required proceedings are all actions that can strengthen the development of the investigation and contribute to a more effective protection of the victim’s rights.
5. Seeking legal advice only when the harm is already difficult to remedy
Fraud victims frequently turn to an attorney only after exhausting all informal efforts to recover their money, and a delayed response can limit the alternatives available for recovering the harm suffered.
While each case presents its own particular circumstances, time is a decisive factor that allows many of the obstacles that commonly arise during an investigation to be anticipated. The longer the victim delays taking action, the more opportunity the perpetrator has to hinder the clarification of the facts and reduce the chances of recovering the lost assets.
At the first signs of having been a victim of fraud, or during the early stages of a dispute, it is advisable to seek legal guidance in order to assess and define an appropriate strategy, protect the victim’s rights, and take the necessary steps to strengthen and maximize the chances of achieving effective reparation of the harm caused.
In conclusion, in fraud cases, the success of an investigation does not depend solely on proving that the crime occurred, but also on acting promptly and without delay, properly preserving evidence, and protecting the assets that will ultimately make it possible to remedy the harm caused. An effective investigation and the possibility of obtaining reparation hinge on the decisions made during the earliest stages of the process.
