ع
Kuwait has expanded coordination against financial fraud, but a victim still needs to distinguish stopping a transaction, challenging a bank’s response and pursuing a legal claim.
Discovering a fraudulent transfer creates two urgent questions: can more money be stopped from leaving, and can the money already lost be recovered? They are connected, but the answer to one does not settle the other. A report that protects an account is not itself a decision about repayment.
That distinction matters as Kuwait broadens its response to electronic fraud. In August 2026, The Times Kuwait reported that the Central Bank had instructed exchange companies to join the Central Chamber coordinating fraud cases. The report also described a wider opening for electronic payment and electronic money service providers.
The development concerns institutional coordination and the tracing of transactions. For an individual customer, it does not remove the need to contact the relevant financial institution, document what happened and identify the appropriate route for any unresolved claim.
The first call concerns the account
National Bank of Kuwait’s security guidance tells customers who have fallen victim to fraud to notify the bank immediately, including where they have already disclosed sensitive information. The bank also warns that criminals can disguise caller identities and use communications that appear to come from a trusted institution.
For NBK customers, the published domestic contact is 1801801. Customers of other banks should use their own institution’s verified contact details. A number supplied inside the suspicious message is not an independent way to verify that message.
The immediate conversation should make clear which account or card is affected, which transactions are disputed and whether login details or authentication codes were disclosed. Those facts help the bank understand the incident it is being asked to address. They should not be withheld out of embarrassment or replaced by guesses about how the fraud occurred.
Stopping further activity and determining responsibility for an earlier transaction are different tasks. A blocked card or recorded incident number confirms an action or report; it does not, by itself, establish that the disputed amount will be refunded.
A formal complaint has its own record
The Central Bank’s current bank-complaint guidance sets out when customers may complain to the regulator. It identifies a bank’s refusal to provide the complaint form, or its failure to respond in writing within five working days of receiving the complaint, as the relevant circumstances.
That makes the formal submission and its receipt significant records. An initial fraud call may trigger urgent protective action, while the complaint sets out the customer’s unresolved concern. Customers should establish how their bank has logged each communication rather than assume that a phone conversation automatically completes every procedure.
The five-working-day period concerns the bank’s written response to a complaint. It should not be read as a deadline by which every fraudulent transfer must be recovered or every legal dispute determined. The distinction prevents an administrative response timetable from becoming a promise about the outcome.
A complaint is clearer when it identifies the disputed transaction, the steps already taken and the specific response being sought. The transaction reference, submission date and bank’s reply allow the subsequent record to be followed without relying on recollection.
Escalation is not one route for every case
Where a bank has replied but the dispute remains unresolved, the Central Bank publishes a separate appeal procedure. It requires the customer to have first approached the bank, received a written response and attached that response with the grounds and supporting documents for the appeal.
The guidance also lists exclusions. These include a subject already before a court or the Public Prosecution and appeals against entities outside the Central Bank’s supervision. A customer therefore cannot assume that every complaint about money belongs in the same regulatory channel.
This does not mean a suspected crime should be left unreported while an administrative dispute progresses. It means the scope and interaction of the routes need to be understood. Reporting an alleged fraud and challenging how a regulated bank handled a transaction can raise distinct questions, with different authorities and procedural conditions.
The identity of the counterparty also matters. A genuine regulated institution, an impersonator using its name and an unrelated online seller are not interchangeable. Establishing who received the funds and what service was involved helps define the problem being referred.
Build the file around the transaction
Kuwait lawyer Khaled Mufrej Al-Dalmani’s practice includes cybercrime, fraud and financial claims. His office’s published approach begins with examining the facts and documents before deciding the appropriate legal step. That is relevant where an incident combines a suspected offence with a disputed payment or contractual relationship.
A useful record connects the original approach or advertisement with the conversation, payment instruction, transfer confirmation and subsequent replies. The account name, recipient details and transaction reference may be more useful to an assessment than the profile name displayed on a social platform.
The file should also retain what the customer told the bank and the response received. If later information changes the initial account, that change needs to be explained. Presenting an accurate chronology is more useful than forcing uncertain facts into a confident allegation.
Kuwait’s expanded coordination can support the institutional response to fraud, but it does not make recovery automatic. For the person seeking repayment, the next question is specific: which transaction remains disputed, against whom is the claim directed, and which authority or legal process can consider it?
