Losing money to a scam is both a financial emergency and an evidence emergency. In the Philippines, the first legal reality is this: there is no universal button that automatically reverses a scam transfer. Once funds are voluntarily sent, recovery depends on speed, proof, the payment channel used, whether the money is still parked somewhere traceable, and whether the receiving institution or law enforcement can act before the funds are withdrawn, layered, or converted.

Still, victims are not without remedies. Philippine law provides a framework through bank and e-money fraud reporting, criminal prosecution, anti-money-laundering controls, cybercrime enforcement, civil recovery, and regulatory complaints. In some cases, the most realistic objective is not immediate return of the money but the rapid blocking, holding, tracing, and preserving of what remains.

This article explains the Philippine legal landscape comprehensively: what “freezing” really means, what you can and cannot demand from a bank or e-wallet, what agencies are involved, what cases may be filed, what happens with crypto or mule accounts, and how recovery usually works in practice.

I. The Core Legal Reality: “Freeze” and “Recover” Are Not the Same Thing

Many victims say they want to “freeze” the scammer’s funds. Legally and practically, that phrase can refer to several different things:

1. An internal hold or restriction by a bank, e-wallet, or remittance company

This is the fastest and most realistic emergency measure. If you report immediately, the receiving institution may place a temporary restriction, hold, or fraud review on the recipient account or the suspicious transfer, especially if the funds are still there. This is not the same as a court-issued freeze order, but it can prevent further movement while the institution investigates.

2. A law-enforcement-led asset restraint

If the case is elevated and linked to criminal activity, agencies may coordinate with financial institutions and, where applicable, with anti-money-laundering mechanisms. This is more formal, slower, and usually depends on evidentiary thresholds.

3. A formal anti-money-laundering freeze order

In Philippine law, a true freeze order in the strict anti-money-laundering sense is not something a private victim simply obtains by letter. That remedy is tied to anti-money-laundering procedures and institutional action, not ordinary customer service escalation.

4. Actual recovery or return of funds

Even if an account is blocked, that does not automatically mean the money is returned. Recovery often requires:

confirmation that the funds are still intact,
investigation of competing claims,
institutional consent or legal compulsion,
and sometimes criminal or civil proceedings.

The practical sequence is often: report → try to stop movement → preserve evidence → initiate enforcement → pursue restitution or damages.

II. The First Principle: Time Is the Most Important Factor

In scam cases, speed matters more than almost anything else.

If the scam occurred through:

an online bank transfer,
InstaPay or PESONet,
an e-wallet transfer,
cardless cash-out,
remittance pickup,
QR payment,
or crypto purchase,

the odds of recovery usually drop sharply once the funds are:

withdrawn in cash,
transferred to multiple accounts,
converted into crypto,
used for bills or merchant payments,
or sent out of the Philippines.

The legal system can help, but money moves faster than case processing. That is why the first few hours are decisive.

III. Immediate Emergency Actions After Sending Funds

The first step is not the police report. The first step is simultaneous emergency escalation.

1. Contact your bank, e-wallet, or payment provider immediately

Use the official hotline, app chat, email, and branch if necessary. Ask for all of the following:

immediate tagging of the transaction as scam/fraud;
urgent recall or reversal request, if technically possible;
immediate coordination with the recipient institution;
urgent restriction or hold on the beneficiary account if the funds are still there;
preservation of transaction logs and account access records;
written case or reference number.

Be specific. Give:

your full name,
account number,
mobile number,
transaction amount,
exact date and time,
transaction reference number,
recipient account name,
recipient account number or wallet number,
screenshots,
chat history with the scammer,
proof of how you were induced to send the money.

Do not wait to “organize everything perfectly.” Send the report first, then supplement.

2. Contact the recipient bank or e-wallet too

Even if you are not their customer, report the scam and ask them to:

flag the receiving account,
place the account under fraud review,
preserve KYC and transaction records,
and coordinate with your sending institution and law enforcement.

Some institutions will not discuss account details because of confidentiality rules, but the report still matters because it can trigger internal review.

3. Change your passwords and secure accounts

If the scam involved phishing, OTP disclosure, remote access apps, SIM takeover, or identity compromise:

change banking and email passwords immediately;
log out of all sessions;
block cards if needed;
deactivate suspicious devices;
contact your telco if your SIM may be compromised.

4. Preserve evidence immediately

Save:

screenshots,
call logs,
SMS,
emails,
social media profiles,
wallet addresses,
QR codes,
fake receipts,
payment instructions,
delivery records,
and all transaction references.

Do not edit screenshots. Keep originals where possible.

IV. What the Sender Bank or E-Wallet Can Actually Do

Victims often overestimate reversal rights. In the Philippines, if you authorized the transfer, even because you were deceived, the institution may initially treat it as an authorized transaction rather than an unauthorized hack. That distinction matters.

Still, institutions may do several things:

1. Transaction trace and interbank coordination

The sender institution can contact the recipient institution and notify it that the credited funds are allegedly fraud proceeds.

2. Fraud alert or account flagging

The recipient account may be tagged for suspicious activity, especially if there are multiple complaints.

3. Temporary hold or restricted access

If the funds remain in the account and the institution sees enough basis, it may restrict outgoing use pending investigation or compliance review.

4. Internal investigation and regulatory reporting

The case may be escalated to fraud, compliance, legal, and anti-money-laundering teams.

5. Limited or no reversal where funds are gone

If the funds have already been withdrawn or moved out, the sending institution may say it cannot unilaterally debit the recipient account. That is often legally correct.

The important point is this: a victim can demand urgent action, but not every victim can compel immediate reversal by simple request alone.

V. What “Freezing” Means Under Philippine Anti-Money-Laundering Law

Under Philippine anti-money-laundering law, “freezing” has a technical meaning. A formal freeze order is generally associated with institutional action under the anti-money-laundering regime, not a private person’s ordinary complaint.

Key practical points:

A victim usually does not personally obtain an AML freeze order by filing a normal complaint letter.
Banks and e-money issuers may still place internal restrictions or fraud holds before any formal freeze order exists.
If the case has indicators of predicate criminality, layering, mule accounts, organized fraud, or suspicious movement of funds, the matter may reach anti-money-laundering channels.
The victim’s role is to provide enough detail to make the funds traceable and to trigger institutional escalation.

This distinction is crucial:

Internal fraud hold = practical, immediate, operational
AML freeze order = formal, legal, institutional, and narrower

VI. The Criminal Law Routes in the Philippines

Sending money to a scammer may support one or several criminal complaints depending on what happened.

1. Estafa

Many scam cases fit estafa, especially where the offender used deceit to induce the victim to part with money.

Common examples:

fake investment opportunities,
fake online selling,
fake job or travel processing,
false promises to return profits,
pretending to act for a business, friend, official, or romantic partner.

Estafa is often the most familiar criminal route when the transfer was induced by fraud rather than by direct hacking.

2. Cybercrime-related offenses

If the scam used online platforms, phishing pages, hacked accounts, malicious links, fake websites, impersonation through digital channels, or computer systems, cybercrime laws may also apply.

A scam can be both:

traditional fraud in substance, and
cyber-enabled in method.

3. Identity theft, computer-related fraud, illegal access, and related offenses

If the incident involved:

account takeover,
unauthorized access,
misuse of credentials,
interception of OTPs,
data theft,
SIM swapping,
or fake online banking pages,

the case may go beyond ordinary estafa.

4. Access device or card-related fraud

If the scam involved cards, CVV theft, card-not-present use, or digital card abuse, other specific offenses may also be implicated.

5. Money mule and account-lending conduct

A common Philippine scam structure uses “mule” accounts: people who knowingly or negligently allow their accounts, wallets, or IDs to be used to receive fraud proceeds. Even if the visible recipient is not the mastermind, that recipient may still be central to recovery and prosecution.

6. Newer anti-financial-scam protections

Philippine law has also moved toward specifically targeting financial account scamming, including social engineering and mule-account behavior. In practice, this strengthens the legal basis for banks, e-money issuers, and enforcement bodies to respond to scam-linked accounts and suspicious account use.

VII. Where to Report in the Philippines

You can pursue multiple tracks at once.

1. Your bank or e-wallet

Always first.

2. The recipient bank or e-wallet

Also immediate.

3. PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group

Appropriate for online scams, phishing, account compromise, impersonation, fake websites, and digital evidence preservation.

4. NBI Cybercrime Division

Also appropriate for cyber-enabled fraud and tracing.

5. The Office of the Prosecutor

For formal criminal complaint filing after evidence is assembled.

6. Regulatory agencies, where applicable

Depending on the channel used:

banking and e-money concerns may involve the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas,
securities or investment schemes may implicate the Securities and Exchange Commission,
insurance products may involve the Insurance Commission,
privacy breaches may implicate the National Privacy Commission.

Not every agency will recover your money directly, but the right complaint can increase pressure, preserve records, and support prosecution.

VIII. The Best Evidence to Gather

A scam case is often won or lost on documentation.

Preserve these categories:

Transaction evidence

transfer confirmation
reference number
amount
date and time
sender account/wallet
recipient account/wallet
screenshots of transaction success page
official email or SMS confirmation

Fraud narrative evidence

what the scammer told you
how you were induced
promises made
fake guarantees
instructions to hurry or keep the transfer secret
fake employee identities
fake IDs, SEC claims, permits, or business registrations

Identity and routing evidence

recipient name shown in app
mobile number
account number
QR code
wallet address
remittance pickup details
delivery address if goods were involved
social media usernames and profile URLs

Technical evidence

phishing links
websites
domain names
email headers
IP-related details if available
device screenshots
anydesk/teamviewer/remote app logs

Witnesses

anyone who heard the calls
anyone who saw the chat
anyone who also sent money to the same person

Institutional records

Ask your provider to preserve:

log-in records,
device fingerprints,
transaction metadata,
KYC records of the recipient,
linked accounts,
cash-out records.

You may not receive all of these records immediately, but asking early matters.

IX. Can a Bank or E-Wallet Tell You Who the Scammer Is?

Usually not, at least not fully and not just because you ask.

Banks and e-money issuers are constrained by confidentiality and due process rules. Even if the recipient account exists, the institution may refuse to disclose:

full KYC details,
account balances,
transaction history,
linked accounts,
or destination of onward transfers.

This frustrates victims, but it is common. The practical workaround is:

file the fraud report,
obtain the reference number,
file with law enforcement,
and let the institution release information through lawful channels.

So the right question is often not “Will they tell me?” but “Will they preserve and later produce it through proper process?”

X. When the Scam Was a Bank Transfer

If you transferred from one bank to another, the outcome usually depends on whether:

the receiving account is still funded,
the receiving bank acts before withdrawal,
the recipient account is a real KYC’d account rather than a synthetic or borrowed one,
the transaction was made during a time window where operational intervention is still possible.

Common realities:

If the recipient account still holds the funds, an internal hold may help.
If the account was emptied quickly, recovery becomes far harder.
If the scammer used several receiving accounts, each institution may need separate reporting.
If the recipient bank sees a pattern across multiple victims, it may act more decisively.

XI. When the Scam Was Through an E-Wallet

E-wallet scam cases are extremely common because transfers are fast and accounts are easy to move through.

Practical characteristics:

money can be transferred onward within minutes,
cash-out agents may be used,
wallet numbers may be linked to mule SIMs or borrowed identities,
funds may be split into smaller amounts.

Still, e-wallet operators can sometimes:

flag the wallet,
suspend it,
preserve account registration data,
preserve linked devices and cash-out history,
coordinate with other institutions.

In many wallet cases, the realistic objective is not immediate reversal but stopping the next hop.

XII. When the Scam Was Through Remittance or Cash Pickup

If the scam used:

remittance centers,
cash pickup,
pawnshop remittance,
or over-the-counter collection,

recovery becomes very fact-sensitive.

If the payout has not yet been claimed, there may be a chance to stop release. Once claimed, recovery depends on:

CCTV,
pickup identification,
branch details,
law enforcement follow-up,
and whether the ID used was real or forged.

In these cases, immediate reporting to the remittance provider is critical.

XIII. When the Scam Involved Crypto

Crypto recovery is legally and practically different.

If you bought crypto and sent it to a scammer’s wallet:

the bank transfer to the exchange may be traceable,
but the blockchain transfer itself is usually irreversible,
and the scammer may bridge, swap, mix, or move assets offshore quickly.

What can still help:

report immediately to the exchange you used,
report to any exchange where the receiving address may cash out,
preserve wallet addresses and transaction hashes,
file law enforcement complaints quickly,
document exactly which platform, wallet, network, and token were used.

If the scammer’s wallet interacts with a regulated exchange that performs KYC, there may still be a path to tracing and restraint. But time is even more critical here.

XIV. Can the Victim File a Case Even if the Recipient Account Belongs to a “Mule”?

Yes.

In many scam cases, the first visible recipient is not the mastermind. But that does not end the matter.

A mule account holder may be:

a knowing participant,
a reckless account lender,
or a person who can identify the next link in the chain.

From a recovery perspective, the mule account is often the most immediately actionable target because it is the first identifiable financial endpoint. In a criminal complaint, it may be proper to include known participants and then continue building the case.

XV. Criminal Complaint vs Civil Case: Which Is Better?

Usually, victims should understand both.

1. Criminal complaint

Advantages:

stronger investigative tools,
law enforcement involvement,
greater pressure on institutions and respondents,
possibility of restitution within a criminal case,
deterrent effect.

Disadvantages:

slower than victims expect,
dependent on prosecutors and evidence,
may focus more on punishment than quick repayment.

2. Civil action

A civil case may seek:

return of money,
damages,
interest,
attorney’s fees,
and relief based on fraud, unjust enrichment, or contractual theories where relevant.

Disadvantages:

you may need a clearly identifiable defendant,
separate litigation costs,
service and tracing issues,
difficult if identities are unknown or false.

3. Practical answer

In many scam situations, the criminal route is the more realistic starting point because it helps uncover identity and transaction records. Civil recovery becomes stronger once the parties and money trail are clearer.

XVI. Restitution, Damages, and Return of Funds

Victims often ask whether the scammer can simply be ordered to return the money.

In principle, yes. The law can support:

restitution,
actual damages,
moral damages in proper cases,
exemplary damages where justified,
attorney’s fees in appropriate circumstances.

But legal entitlement and practical collection are different things.

Even if you win a case, collection depends on whether the wrongdoer has:

assets,
traceable accounts,
property,
employment,
or recoverable proceeds.

The hard truth is that many scammers are judgment-proof or difficult to locate. That is why early restraint of funds is so important.

XVII. What If the Scam Was an “Investment” Scheme?

This is common in the Philippines:

guaranteed returns,
copy-trading promises,
crypto doubling,
online lending pools,
forex bots,
“insider” investment groups,
fake SEC-registered representations,
social-media trading mentors.

These cases may involve:

estafa,
securities violations,
cyber-related offenses,
large-scale fraud patterns,
and anti-money-laundering implications if the operation is organized.

Victims should preserve:

group chats,
pitch decks,
posted return rates,
payout screenshots,
admin names,
proof of other investors.

A fake investment case is often easier to frame when there are multiple complainants.

XVIII. What If You Were Tricked Into Giving OTPs or Installing an App?

These cases are often not treated the same way as ordinary “I changed my mind” transactions.

If the scammer:

got your OTP,
got your online banking password,
convinced you to install remote access software,
cloned your SIM,
or used phishing to take over your account,

then the incident may involve unauthorized access or computer-related fraud, not just ordinary mistaken payment.

That can affect:

how the bank characterizes the transaction,
whether liability is disputed,
what evidence matters,
and what kind of criminal complaint should be filed.

Still, institutions may argue contributory negligence if you voluntarily disclosed credentials. That does not necessarily bar recovery, but it complicates it.

XIX. Regulatory Complaints: When They Help

A regulatory complaint is not always the same as a recovery mechanism, but it can be useful.

1. Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas

If a BSP-supervised bank, e-money issuer, or payment participant failed to handle your fraud complaint properly, delayed unreasonably, ignored evidence, or gave no meaningful resolution path, a BSP complaint may help push accountability and responsiveness.

2. Securities and Exchange Commission

Relevant if the scam involved fake investment solicitation, unlicensed securities selling, or false corporate legitimacy claims.

3. National Privacy Commission

Relevant if the scam involved unlawful use of your personal data, identity misuse, or improper data exposure.

4. Consumer-protection style complaints

These may help in merchant-related fraud, fake sellers, and platform disputes, though not every online scam is best handled as a consumer complaint.

XX. Can You Force Immediate Disclosure of the Recipient’s Bank Records?

Usually not by demand letter alone.

A victim generally cannot compel a bank to hand over a stranger’s full account records informally. Philippine financial confidentiality rules remain a major barrier. What usually works is:

filing a formal complaint,
routing requests through investigators, prosecutors, or courts,
and obtaining records through lawful process.

This is one reason many victims feel stuck: they know the money went somewhere, but they cannot personally pry open the account behind it.

XXI. Demand Letters: Useful, but Not Magical

A demand letter can be useful if:

the recipient is identifiable,
the person used a real name or real business,
the dispute is not purely anonymous cybercrime,
or the recipient may still choose to return the funds.

A demand letter is less useful when:

the identity is fake,
the address is false,
the scammer is overseas,
or the visible account holder is only a mule.

Demand letters are best seen as one tool, not the main strategy.

XXII. Court Remedies Beyond Criminal Complaints

Depending on the case, there may be procedural remedies involving the courts, especially where a civil action is filed and the defendant is identifiable. In the right circumstances, provisional remedies may be explored to secure assets while the case proceeds. But these are not quick, automatic, or always available in anonymous scam settings.

The obstacle is usually not legal theory. It is identification, tracing, and timing.

XXIII. Multiple Victims Strengthen a Case

Many scammers reuse:

the same wallet number,
the same beneficiary account,
the same Facebook page,
the same Telegram or Viber group,
the same product pitch,
the same fake receipt format,
or the same “handler.”

When several victims coordinate:

institutions see clearer fraud patterns,
law enforcement takes the case more seriously,
mule accounts are easier to establish,
prosecutors can better infer scheme and intent.

A lone complaint can work, but a pattern case is often stronger.

XXIV. What Victims Commonly Do Wrong

1. Waiting too long

Victims sometimes spend days arguing with the scammer, hoping for a refund. That delay can destroy recovery chances.

2. Reporting only to the police but not the bank

A police report alone may not stop fund movement.

3. Reporting only to the sender bank

The recipient institution also needs notice.

4. Failing to preserve original evidence

Deleted chats, overwritten screenshots, and missing transaction references weaken the case.

5. Sending more money to “unlock” or “recover” the original funds

This is a classic secondary scam.

6. Believing a fake “recovery agent”

After the first loss, victims are often targeted again by people claiming they can recover the money for a fee.

7. Framing the complaint too vaguely

Use exact dates, times, amounts, reference numbers, and account identifiers.

XXV. What Recovery Usually Looks Like in Practice

In the Philippines, successful recovery usually happens through one of these real-world scenarios:

Scenario A: The money is still in the first recipient account

This is the best-case scenario. A quick report leads to an internal hold, account restriction, or non-release of remaining funds.

Scenario B: The recipient account is identified and pressured

The visible account holder returns the funds after institutional contact, demand, or criminal exposure.

Scenario C: The scam ring is traced through multiple complaints

Recovery may come later through settlement, restitution, or seizure of traceable proceeds.

Scenario D: Only part of the funds is recovered

A common outcome when some money remains and some has already moved.

Scenario E: No direct recovery, but strong criminal case

Even when funds are gone, prosecution can still proceed.

XXVI. The Problem of “Authorized But Fraud-Induced” Transfers

This is one of the hardest issues in scam law.

If you personally clicked “send,” banks may say:

the system worked properly,
the transfer was authenticated,
and the payment was authorized.

Victims respond that:

consent was obtained by fraud,
the transaction was not meaningfully voluntary,
and the institution should still help preserve or trace the funds.

Both perspectives appear in real disputes. Legally, fraud-induced consent is not true consent in the moral sense, but in payment operations, the difference between “unauthorized access” and “authorized payment under deception” affects liability.

This is why your complaint should not just say:

“I want a reversal.”

It should explain:

the deceit used,
the urgency,
the ongoing fraud pattern,
why the recipient account should be treated as suspicious,
and why the institution should act before dissipation.

XXVII. The Role of BSP-Supervised Institutions After Scam Reports

Banks, e-money issuers, and payment service providers are not simply passive pipes. In the Philippine framework, they have fraud, compliance, and customer-protection responsibilities. They may not always refund the victim, but they are expected to:

receive and process complaints,
investigate suspicious activity,
preserve records,
escalate internally,
and coordinate where warranted.

The stronger and faster your report, the more likely the matter reaches the right internal teams.

XXVIII. What to Put in a Strong Written Scam Report

A strong report usually includes:

Subject line “URGENT SCAM REPORT – REQUEST TO FLAG, TRACE, AND HOLD FUNDS”
Transaction details amount, date, time, reference number, sender account, recipient account
Short scam narrative how you were induced; platform used; promises made; urgency tactics
Immediate request
- flag the transaction as scam-linked
- coordinate with recipient institution
- place urgent restriction/hold if funds remain
- preserve logs and records
- provide case reference number
Attachments list screenshots, IDs used by scammer, chats, URLs, receipts
Warning of law-enforcement escalation state that you are also reporting to cybercrime authorities

This kind of report is much better than a bare statement saying only “Please reverse.”

XXIX. Do Police Reports Matter?

Yes, but they are not enough by themselves.

A police or NBI report helps because it:

fixes your narrative early,
supports institutional escalation,
shows seriousness,
and can be used in later proceedings.

But by itself it may not stop funds already moving through the financial system. That is why the best practice is: institutional report + law enforcement report + evidence preservation all at once.

XXX. Cross-Border Scams and Overseas Elements

Many scams targeting Filipinos involve:

foreign call centers,
offshore crypto wallets,
overseas social media operators,
cross-border merchant fronts,
international messaging apps.

These are much harder. Philippine enforcement can still act on local accounts, local mules, local cash-outs, and local victims, but cross-border collection is more difficult.

In such cases, the local objective is often:

identify the Philippine receiving endpoint,
block or preserve local records,
and build the strongest domestic case possible.

XXXI. Can the Platform Be Liable? Facebook, Telegram, Marketplace, Dating Apps, and Others

Usually, the platform is not the first recovery target unless there is a distinct legal basis. The more immediate targets are:

the scammer,
the account holder who received the funds,
involved financial intermediaries where appropriate,
and any local participants.

Still, platform records can matter. Preserve:

usernames,
profile URLs,
post links,
group names,
ad screenshots,
and timestamps.

XXXII. Special Problem: Romance Scams, Job Scams, Buy-and-Sell Scams, and “Verification Fee” Scams

These categories are legally similar in one crucial respect: the victim was deceived into transferring money. The label changes, but the immediate recovery steps do not:

report to the institution,
try to stop movement,
preserve evidence,
identify the recipient,
file criminal complaints.

The more structured the scam narrative, the easier it is to frame deceit.

XXXIII. What the Law Can Realistically Promise

The law can do these things:

recognize the fraud as criminal,
preserve evidence,
pressure institutions to act,
trace accounts through proper process,
prosecute identifiable offenders,
support restitution and damages,
and, in some cases, restrain remaining funds.

The law cannot guarantee:

instant reversal,
direct disclosure of all bank records on request,
recovery after funds were fully dissipated,
or collection from insolvent or anonymous offenders.

That is the most important sober expectation to set.

XXXIV. A Practical Philippine Recovery Strategy

For victims in the Philippines, the strongest path is usually this:

Within the first hour

report to your bank/e-wallet;
report to the recipient institution;
ask for urgent flagging, tracing, and hold;
secure your accounts.

Same day

compile evidence;
report to PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group or NBI Cybercrime Division;
document all reference numbers.

Within the next day or two

prepare a formal complaint package;
identify whether estafa, cybercrime, investment fraud, or account compromise theories apply;
notify relevant regulators where appropriate.

After immediate containment

pursue criminal complaint,
pursue civil recovery where feasible,
monitor institutional responses,
and coordinate with other victims if the pattern is broader.

XXXV. Bottom Line

In the Philippines, money sent to a scammer can sometimes be stopped, held, traced, or partially recovered, but only under the right conditions and usually only with very fast action. A private victim typically cannot command a formal anti-money-laundering freeze order by simple demand, but can and should trigger the most important early steps: immediate fraud reporting, urgent inter-institution coordination, evidence preservation, law-enforcement escalation, and later criminal and civil remedies.

The central legal truth is this:

Recovery is most possible before the funds leave the first traceable endpoint. After that, the case becomes less about simple reversal and more about tracing, prosecution, restitution, and asset recovery through process.

In practical Philippine terms, the best legal strategy is not to think in a single step called “freeze the money.” It is to think in stages:

stop movement, preserve proof, identify recipients, invoke the right laws, and pursue recovery through both institutions and formal legal process.