Rules Unchanged Since 1989

A Public Movement for Reform

Wire fraudis exploding.The rules are stuckin 1989.

People lose life-changing money. Banks aren't required to check that the name matches the account. The system says it's our fault. We disagree.

Share My Story

A public movement pushing for modern protections, accountability, and reform. No legal advice. No harassment. No personal bank details.

Scroll
$12.5BLost to wire fraud in 2023
800K+Reported cyber-enabled incidents
1989Year core protections were written
$0Required recovery in many cases

The Problem

$12.5 billion
was lost to
wire fraud
in 2023.

Innocent American families are destroyed as the epidemic of fraud related cyber crime explodes to over 800,000 cases a year!

Many people assume one simple safeguard exists: if the name on the wire instructions does not match the receiving account, the transfer should stop.

But research indicates that is not universally required.

“That may be efficient for the system. It can be devastating for people.”

Legal Framework — UCC § 4A-207 (1989)

Current protections often point back to UCC § 4A-207, a framework adopted in 1989 — before email-era fraud became what it is today. Courts have held in wire-transfer disputes that account information can control over the named recipient in certain circumstances. The rules were not written for the fraud environment we live in now.

So we are building something simple: a credible public record of stories that lawmakers, regulators, media, and the banking industry cannot ignore.

Make noise.Make Washington listen.Make the banking industry listen.
Share My Story

Tell us what happened

Share My Story

A few sentences is enough. You can choose to stay anonymous.

Disclaimer: We are not lawyers or legal advisors. This site does not provide legal advice. Sharing your story is for advocacy purposes only. For legal questions or to pursue a claim, please consult a licensed attorney.

A few sentences is enough.

0/500 characters. No account numbers, passwords, or SSNs.

For follow-up only. Not published.

You can change this later if we contact you.

We review every submission. Private by default. Takes about 1 minute.

Our Story

This is our story

This is why we initiated WireFraudFiasco. Emails are hacked. The scammer contacts a client posing as my firm and requests the client wire money into an account at Wells Fargo in the name of my firm.

Wells Fargo accepts the wires twice. The money goes in and is immediately transferred out. Calls are fruitless. We are left helpless. This should never have happened, and it shouldn't happen to you.

§ 4A
1989

UCC Article 4A adopted. Rules written for a pre-internet world.

2015+

Business Email Compromise emerges. Wire fraud losses accelerate.

2023

$12.5B lost. Core protections: still 1989.

Stay in the fight

If it happened to you,
say it publicly.
Safely.

Submit with your name, initials, or anonymously where available.

Facts, patterns, and pressure — that's how change happens.

  • Stories reviewed for safety, clarity, and credibility
  • Published to a growing public record
  • Shared with lawmakers, regulators, and media
  • Anonymous submissions accepted where available

Get Updates

Campaign updates, story spotlights, and calls to action delivered to your inbox.

Not legal advice. We are not lawyers or affiliated with any law firm.

No spam. No selling your address. Unsubscribe anytime.

Share My Story