Case A · Risk Management · Legal Ops

Cross-Border Merchant Fraud:
Detection, Prosecution & Risk Controls

UK · FintechNo External LawyersFull EnglishCourt Documents0→1 SOP Build

NeroPay faced multiple cross-border merchant fraud incidents with no legal counsel and no precedent. I independently identified fraud patterns, built a complete evidence chain, drafted UK County Court Witness Statements in full English, and designed systemic risk controls to prevent recurrence.

2
County Court Claims Filed
0
External Lawyers Used
£12k
Total Amount Claimed
6wks
Zero to Filed
Company
NeroPay (Nero Panda Ltd) — UK Fintech payment platform
Role
Operations lead · Case handler · Witness (Shih-Yu Liu)
Period
October 2025 — February 2026
Case Refs
758MC289 · 779MC033 (England & Wales County Court)
Background

No lawyer, no precedent, no SOP — high pressure from day one

NeroPay is an early-stage UK fintech startup providing payment processing for small and mid-sized merchants. In late 2025, the company encountered a series of merchant disputes with clear fraud characteristics. The most complex case involved a merchant (Property Documents Ltd) who ran two card transactions of £4,150 each within five hours, withdrew all funds immediately, then initiated chargebacks — leaving NeroPay with a −£8,290 negative balance.

When we attempted to recover funds via the merchant's stored card, they reported it lost or stolen. OSINT investigation then revealed the merchant director's KYC photo matched a known serial fraudster with 27 aliases and 73 prior fraud convictions documented in UK national media.

The company had no legal counsel, no chargeback SOP, and zero precedent for UK litigation. Every decision, document, and cross-institution contact was handled independently by me.

Timeline

From anomaly detection to court filing

2025.10.04
Merchant registers on NeroPaySIC codes 58190 and 63990 (publishing/information services) — entirely inconsistent with the large-value card-present transactions that followed.
2025.10.30
Two £4,150 transactions within five hoursSame Visa debit card, same day. Funds transferred to NatWest account and withdrawn immediately.
2025.11.05–07
Merchant requests refund — communications deteriorateWe explained funds had been withdrawn; a top-up was needed before any refund. Merchant began stalling and going silent.
2025.11.25
Issuing bank triggers chargeback — negative balance −£8,300Formal recovery initiated: WhatsApp notice, email warning, three-day deadline with explicit statement of legal consequences.
2025.11.26
Auto-debit declined — card reported lost/stolenCounty Court claim filed same day, case ref 758MC289. Merchant received notice and continued non-response.
2026.01.13
Second claim filed — RSN Works Ltd (ref 779MC033)Amount: £3,684. Identical fraud pattern: payment received, goods never delivered, four chargebacks triggered.
2026.02.19
Witness Statement signed — hearing preparation beginsAll eight Exhibits compiled. Both cases enter formal trial stage.
Process

Four layers from chaos to structured prosecution

01

Anomaly Identification & Fraud Classification

Before the chargeback triggered, multiple red flags were already present: same-card double transactions same day, business type inconsistent with spending pattern, immediate full withdrawal. Classified as first-party merchant fraud and escalated to high-alert tracking.

02

Cross-Department Communication & Formal Recovery

Coordinated with customer service colleagues across multiple WhatsApp and phone rounds, logging all merchant commitments and behaviour to build a usable communication record for court. Led formal demand notices with explicit CCJ warnings.

03

Independent Legal Document Drafting

Researched England & Wales County Court format requirements from scratch. Drafted full Statement of Case and Witness Statement in English, compiled eight Exhibits, filed through HMCTS MoneyClaim Online.

04

OSINT Investigation & Identity Verification

Identified high visual match between KYC photo and a documented serial fraudster (27 aliases, 73 convictions). Integrated public record evidence into court documents. Used the merchant's own submitted bank screenshots to rebut their "unauthorised deduction" claim.

Court Exhibits

Eight exhibits — built from zero with no legal support

Outcome

Crisis resolved — systems built behind it

Both claims formally filed and accepted by England & Wales County Court. Total claimed: £12,014. All documentation drafted independently, no external solicitors. Zero to filing in approximately six weeks.

The durable outcome was institutional: this case became NeroPay's reference framework for merchant dispute handling — a Red Flag Checklist, tiered demand notice templates, a chargeback evidence SOP, and a standard structure for HMCTS court documents.

2
County Court Claims Filed
£12,014
Total Amount Claimed
1
Systemic SOP Built After

My Rationale

Most people's first instinct here is "we need a lawyer." In a resource-constrained early startup, that option is often too slow and too expensive. My judgement was: with enough logical structure and language capability, many legal documents are self-serviceable — the key is knowing what you're doing, understanding the format requirements, and knowing when to escalate.

"Chargeback management isn't a finance problem. It sits at the intersection of contract law, behavioural pattern analysis, cross-institution communication, and documentation discipline."

Being able to assess rapidly under uncertainty, act across functional boundaries, and convert each crisis into a replicable institutional asset — that's what makes an early-stage operations role genuinely valuable.

← Back to All Cases
Next Case
Case B — AI Menu Automation →