When victims should have a loan claim legally reviewed — manipulated loan applications, video identification, remote maintenance, payment methods and the limits of bank liability.
Whitepaper 2026
Summary — the seven crucial questions
Finanz Forensik GmbH is a forensic services company, not a law firm. This white paper provides general information on a complex legal matter that remains unresolved in key aspects and does not replace legal advice for individual cases. Deadlines are fast approaching; any declaration to a bank or intermediary should be legally reviewed beforehand. Last updated: August 2026, not reviewed by a lawyer.
Meaning — a reliable core statement from the respective case law or norm cited.
transmission — the Finanz Forensik GmbH's own legal interpretation of the crypto loan case — to be reviewed by a lawyer before implementation.
Two separate damages. The loan is determined by the conclusion of the contract, attribution, payment method and the role of the bank and intermediary.
The credit claim is not determined by the crypto loss, but by the chain of Conclusion of contract, Attribution of the declaration, Payment method and the Role of bank and intermediary. These four points must be examined separately — and in practice lead to very different results.
The result in one sentence. The best starting position exists if the injured party has not made their own declaration or if payment was made directly to the perpetrators without effective instructions; the most difficult case is in which they demonstrably took out the loan themselves, received the money in their own account and then transferred it on themselves — then the examination shifts from loan law to payment services law and to the question of warning and intervention obligations.
„"The investment fraud has been proven, therefore the loan is invalid."" — Both must be assessed separately from a legal perspective; the platform's fraud only affects the loan agreement through certain attribution channels. „"The money is gone, so I don't have to pay anything back."" — The elimination of unjust enrichment is subject to strict conditions and depends on the performance method and the level of knowledge. „"The bank should have stopped it because of money laundering."" — Supervisory obligations, in themselves, do not regularly establish an independent claim for payment.
Access is gained through social networks, messaging apps, purported financial advisors, or manipulated advertisements that mimic editorial content. After a small initial deposit, a fake trading platform displays profits; subsequently, further capital is requested. If the victim's own funds are insufficient, the supposed advisor offers assistance with financing. At this point, the second, independent form of harm occurs.
The perpetrators collect ID, income, and account data (pretext: verification/creditworthiness), fill out loan applications themselves, or guide the victim through the application process remotely. The victim completes a video identification procedure, confirms a link, or releases a TAN—in their understanding, it's about security or identity, not a loan. The bank pays into the victim's account, someone else's account, or directly to a service provider; the funds are then forwarded to an exchange, wallet, or platform. What remains are loan repayments, payment reminders, and often a credit report.
The loan is legally a separate complex of damages. Investment fraud does not automatically render the loan invalid. The loan agreement, disbursement, and subsequent payment to the perpetrators are three separate legal relationships, each with its own requirements. This separation determines who is liable, what time limits apply, and what evidence is needed.
The classification categorizes practical cases according to the injured party's contribution and the payment method. Hybrid forms are common; in such cases, the decisive factor is the group that most accurately reflects both the contract conclusion and the payment method.
| Case group | mark | First legal direction |
|---|---|---|
| A · Identity theft | Perpetrators act without any cooperation; only data and documents are used. | To deny the existence of a contract; to expressly refuse approval of a transaction involving an agent (§§ 164 ff., 177 BGB). |
| B · Technically controlled by an external party | The victim identifies themselves; the perpetrators control the application or the end device. | Check the attribution of the declaration, awareness of the declaration, and authentication protocols. |
| C · Deception-related credit | The victim knows about the loan, but believes it's a genuine investment. | Review revocation, contestation (§ 123 BGB), attribution of the intermediary and your own banking obligations. |
| D · Direct payment to perpetrators | The foreign currency never comes into the control of the injured party. | Dispute that the bank has made payment to the borrower; check the payment instruction and account holder. |
| E · Payment to the injured party | Credit to own account, then own transfer. | Loans are regularly disbursed; the focus is shifting to payment services and warning obligations. |
This leads to a clear order: first, clarify whether a valid contract exists at all (A and B), then whether it can be voided (C), and only lastly, whether the bank has breached its own obligations (C to E). Those who begin with bank liability regularly argue against their own strongest position.
If a perpetrator merely uses someone else's personal details, copies of identification documents, or access data, this does not constitute a contractual declaration by the identity holder. If the perpetrator claims to have acted as a representative, the validity depends on the power of representation or ratification (Sections 164 et seq., 177 of the German Civil Code). Practically speaking, it is important to expressly and in writing refuse ratification and clarify to the bank that no contract has been formed. Anyone who instead makes installment payments or agrees to payment plans risks having their actions interpreted as ratification.
Special case of identification: If the victim has undergone a video identification procedure, it is no longer a case of completely undetected identity theft. Whether the loan application can be attributed to them remains to be examined separately: The procedure proves the identity of the participating person, but not that they submitted the subsequent application themselves or authorized someone to do so—nor does it prove what they could see on the screen.
Cases are more complex when the victim themselves activates a button, releases a TAN, or signs electronically, believing that this is a verification of identity, security, or payment. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) does not rely solely on the individual's intent: According to its landmark decision of 1984, a declaration of intent exists even without awareness of its legal significance if the declarant, exercising due diligence, could have recognized and avoided that their conduct would be interpreted as a declaration of intent, and the recipient actually understood it as such (BGH, 07.06.1984 – IX ZR 66/83).
Transfer to the crypto loan. Crucial factors are the screens actually visible, document titles, amounts, and warnings, as well as the extent of the perpetrators' influence. A technical log proves that approval was granted—not what the victim could perceive. Conversely, a contract clearly designated as a loan agreement can be attributable to the victim despite deception; the recourse then lies in rescission and revocation, not in the absence of a valid contract.
Who controlled the end device, which texts were visible at the moment of release, and what meaning could the bank reasonably assume from an objective recipient's perspective? These three questions determine case group B — answerable only with session logs from the remote maintenance software, screenshots, chat histories, and the bank's release texts.
If the victim was induced to take out a loan through false information, a challenge based on fraudulent misrepresentation may be considered. The crucial hurdle lies in Section 123 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB): If a legally independent third party has committed the deception, the declaration made to the bank is only contestable if the bank knew or should have known of the deception. The fraudster on the platform is regularly such a third party—this approach hinges on the question of whether the intermediary can be attributed to the bank.
The following factors support attribution: standardized cooperation, bank-provided forms or interfaces, regular customer referrals, coordinated processes, commission relationships, and the intermediary's involvement in the bank's closing process. Someone acting on behalf of the bank is not considered a third party within the meaning of Section 123 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB). Conversely, an intermediary's mere knowledge is not automatically attributed to the bank, and the incidental use of a loan portal is insufficient.
If the injured party has made a declaration but was mistaken about its content or meaning, a challenge under Section 119 of the German Civil Code (BGB) may also be considered. This challenge must be made immediately upon becoming aware of the error (Section 121 BGB) and can trigger a claim by the bank for compensation for reliance damages (Section 122 BGB) – this obligation to pay compensation does not exist in the case of a challenge based on fraudulent misrepresentation. The legal consequences must therefore be examined before any separate declaration; a challenge based on mistake made without due consideration can worsen the position.
A challenge based on fraudulent misrepresentation must be declared within one year of discovery; it is barred ten years after the declaration (§ 124 BGB). A staged declaration is advisable: Primarily, the existence of a contract and the existence of a claim are contested; only secondarily are challenges and revocations declared. A challenge declared solely on the grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation can create the impression that an attributable contractual declaration was initially made; therefore, in cases of disputed contract formation, it should expressly be stated as only a secondary measure.
General consumer loan agreements typically include a right of withdrawal (§ 495 German Civil Code). The withdrawal period does not begin until the consumer has received the contract document or a copy thereof; if mandatory information is missing, the start of the withdrawal period is postponed (§§ 492, 356b German Civil Code). Particularly in cases where the debtor is at fault, receipt of the documents is often questionable because the contact details on file have been manipulated—in such cases, it must be examined whether the withdrawal period even began to run.
The revocation does not economically eliminate the net loan amount already disbursed. After revocation, the received funds must be returned; the reversal of the transaction is governed by Section 357b of the German Civil Code (BGB) and must be calculated separately. Revocation is therefore particularly valuable where the funds never reached the recipient—or in connection with a related transaction.
With the credit to its own freely available account, the bank has regularly fulfilled its disbursement obligation; the loan is disbursed. The subsequent transfer to the perpetrators then concerns the use of the money. This does not mean that it must be accepted as a matter of course—however, it must be assessed separately under payment services law (Chapter 10) and is directed against the account-holding institution, not necessarily against the lender.
If a bank pays into a perpetrator's account without a valid instruction, the initial question is whether any payment has actually been made to the borrower. Without payment, there is no claim for repayment of the loan. Key factors include the account holder, the payment instruction, the time and authentication of any account changes, and any discernible discrepancies between the borrower and the recipient of the payment. A subsequently changed payment account in a different name is the strongest single finding that such a case can offer.
If the contract is voided, claims based on unjust enrichment under Sections 812 et seq. of the German Civil Code (BGB) may arise. Whether the injured party can invoke the defense of unjust enrichment (Section 818 Paragraph 3 BGB) depends on the method of performance, the attribution of the damage, and the injured party's knowledge; the stricter liability under Sections 818 Paragraph 4 and 819 BGB must also be considered. The blanket statement "The money is gone, so nothing has to be repaid" is legally untenable.
A loan and the financed transaction can be considered linked under Section 358 of the German Civil Code (BGB) if the loan serves as financing and both form an economic unit—in particular, if the lender utilizes the entrepreneur's cooperation in preparing or concluding the transaction. Section 359 of the BGB then allows for the defense of piercing the corporate veil, subject to further conditions.
For crypto-related cases, there are two hurdles. First, a mere intended use is insufficient; an economic connection is required, which depends on the intermediary's involvement in the loan agreement. Second, Section 359 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB) excludes loan agreements that serve to finance the acquisition of financial instruments (corresponding to Section 358 Paragraph 5 of the BGB regarding the consequences of revocation).
Whether this exclusion applies in the case of cryptocurrencies must be examined based on the specific product promised. Regulatory definitions are of limited help: German supervisory law partially includes crypto assets in the concept of financial instruments (§ 2 WpHG), while the MiCA Regulation distinguishes crypto assets from financial instruments as defined in MiFID. For the civil law exclusions under §§ 358, 359 BGB, the regulatory classification is merely an interpretive guideline, not a prejudicial decision. More importantly in practice: The exclusion requires the acquisition of a financial instrument—this may be lacking in the case of a completely fictitious platform (no coins, no custody account, no contractual partner obligated to deliver). This point must be explicitly included in the presentation.
A lending bank is generally not required to examine the economic expediency of the intended use of the funds. According to the established case law of the XI Civil Senate, a bank's own duty to disclose information arises only in four categories: if the bank exceeds its role as a lender, if it creates or facilitates a particular risk, if it becomes involved in a serious conflict of interest, or if it has a concrete, recognizable informational advantage with regard to specific risks (see, among others, BGH XI ZR 322/01; XI ZR 6/04, para. 41). The bank determines the loan-to-value ratio in its own interest (XI ZR 322/03, para. 43) – no obligation can be inferred solely from a poor internal risk assessment.
The most important aspect for those who have suffered losses concerns the close, institutionalized cooperation between the bank and its sales department. This does not establish automatic liability, but rather a Easing of the burden of proofThe bank's knowledge of fraudulent misrepresentation, which triggers a duty to disclose information, is presumed, subject to rebuttal, if three conditions are met: an institutionalized collaboration between the seller/initiator, intermediary, and financing bank; a financing concept offered by the seller/intermediary; and an inaccuracy of the information that is evident under the circumstances of the case (Federal Court of Justice, XI ZR 6/04, principle 3; continued in XI ZR 204/04, para. 23; XI ZR 232/09).
The decision cannot be reduced to "same intermediary, therefore the bank is liable". All three prerequisites must be presented and proven; demonstrating the incorrectness is, in our experience, the most difficult.
The case law concerned real estate and fund investments financed by loans. Its basic principles can be applied if the presentation reflects the same structure. Points of reference:
These factors do not constitute independent grounds for claims. However, they can support arguments regarding knowledge, constructive knowledge, organizational negligence, or pre-contractual obligations (Sections 280 para. 1, 311 para. 2, 241 para. 2 of the German Civil Code) — and they determine which documents must be requested from the bank.
According to Section 505a of the German Civil Code (BGB), the lender must assess the borrower's creditworthiness before concluding a loan agreement; a general consumer loan may only be granted if there are no significant doubts about the borrower's ability to fulfill the contract. The legal consequences of a breach are governed by Section 505d of the BGB: the loan does not become void, and certainly the bank is not liable for the investment loss—however, the borrowing rate may be reduced (to the statutory reference rate), and the borrower has the right to terminate the loan at any time without penalty, provided the loan agreement should not have been concluded had the proper assessment been carried out.
Conversely: If the deficiency is due to the borrower intentionally or through gross negligence providing or withholding incorrect information, the legal consequences do not apply in this respect (§ 505d para. 3 of the German Civil Code). If a perpetrator entered the false information without the knowledge or authorization of the injured party, it must be examined separately whether it can be attributed to the borrower at all—there is no automatic attribution.
In practice, the review remains crucial: it determines which internal documents might be relevant. Whether and how the bank must submit them must be examined separately—depending on the circumstances, this could involve contractual rights to information, Article 15 GDPR, secondary burden of proof, or a court order for production. There is no general pre-litigation right to all internal review notes. A loan that, upon realistic consideration, was not viable is also an indication of conspicuous application data—and thus of detectability within the meaning of Chapter 8.
Once the loan amount has been transferred, a distinction must be made between authorized and unauthorized payment transactions. A payment transaction is only valid if the payer has consented (§ 675j German Civil Code). If consent is lacking, the payer has a right to reimbursement from the institution (§ 675u German Civil Code); conversely, the institution can claim damages in cases of intentional or grossly negligent breach of its duty of care (§ 675v German Civil Code). Remote maintenance and TAN cases are decided within this complex legal framework.
Distinction from deception: Anyone who approves a transfer knowing its contents authorizes it even if they have been deceived about its purpose. Conversely, strong customer authentication does not definitively answer who issued the specific order and what the approved transfer contained—especially not if the perpetrators controlled the device and presented a different approval screen.
| constellation | Examination focus |
|---|---|
| The victim deliberately initiates the transfer. | Deception alone does not usually render the payment unauthorized; duties to warn, inquire and intervene, as well as any contributory negligence, must be examined. |
| The perpetrators operate the device remotely. | Authorship of the order, specific approval, visibility of order data and attribution; securing session logs of the remote maintenance software. |
| Perpetrators use stolen login credentials | Dispute authorization (§ 675u BGB); request authentication protocols and prepare the objection of gross negligence (§ 675v BGB). |
| Recipient account will be changed subsequently | Check the instructions, change log, account holder verification, and any irregularities in the approval process. |
Anti-money laundering due diligence and reporting obligations can be triggered by unusual transactions. For the victim, it is important to distinguish between two things: The obligations under the Money Laundering Act serve to protect the financial system, not individual financial interests; therefore, according to the prevailing opinion, a violation does not give rise to an independent claim for damages under Section 823 Paragraph 2 of the German Civil Code (BGB). However, anti-money laundering indicators can demonstrate that irregularities were recognizable and what internal checks were carried out—thus supporting claims regarding contractual warning and intervention obligations.
The statement "The bank should have stopped the transaction due to money laundering" is generally too vague without concrete warning signs, transaction data, and a defined standard of compliance. The claim only becomes credible with specific details: the amount of the transaction, the recipient country, the deviation from previous account activity, and what inquiries were omitted.
The following decisions shape the argument. None of them directly decides the crypto loan case. Meaning reflects the reliable statement; transmission This indicates the author's own legal derivation. Direct quotations are limited to short phrases documented in the official text and are set off; everything else is a paraphrase.
References: BGHZ 91, 324; NJW 1984, 2279. Subject: Declaration of intent in the absence of awareness of the declaration.
„… could have recognized and avoided the fact that his statement … could be interpreted as a declaration of intent."
Meaning: An unintended contract can be attributed to the declarant if, with due diligence, the declarant could have recognized and avoided that their conduct would be understood as a declaration of intent, and the recipient actually understood it as such; the declaration is then contestable under §§ 119, 121, 143 of the German Civil Code (BGB). Transmission: directly relevant for TAN, click and signature cases — highly dependent on the facts, because it depends on the recognizability in the specific screen sequence.
References: BGHZ 168, 1; NJW 2006, 2099. Subject matter: credit-financed capital investment, institutionalized cooperation, easing of the burden of proof.
„… is presumed, subject to rebuttal, if … cooperate in an institutionalized manner."
Meaning: Under three cumulative conditions, the bank's knowledge of a fraudulent deception is rebuttably presumed: institutionalized cooperation, a financing concept offered, and an inaccuracy evident under the circumstances. Transmission: It is viable if a supposed investment intermediary systematically also organizes the loan agreement; the mere temporal sequence of loan and investment is not sufficient.
XI ZR 204/04 (BGHZ 169, 109 Rn. 23) confirms the easing of the burden of proof and clarifies that cooperation alone is not sufficient — deception and evidence remain independent requirements. XI ZR 232/09 (WM 2010, 2069): Even a long-term sales relationship does not replace the examination of whether the specific inaccuracy was evident to the bank. Transmission: protects against over-transmission — concrete warning signals in the respective credit transaction or reliable systemic knowledge are required.
„… goes beyond its role as a lender."
XI ZR 322/01 (WM 2004, 172): The bank is not a general control authority; disclosure obligations require an exceeding of the lender role, a specific risk situation, a serious conflict of interest or a concrete, recognizable knowledge advantage — the central counter-argument of the banks. XI ZR 322/03 (WM 2008, 115 para. 43): The determination of the loan-to-value ratio is carried out in the bank's own interest; this does not give rise to any duty to provide information. Transmission: This limits arguments that are based solely on internal risk assessments.
| Legal precedent | It helps the injured party if… | Limit the claim because… |
|---|---|---|
| Explanatory awareness | the credit significance was not objectively recognizable or the process was externally controlled | a clearly identifiable contract notice and a separate confirmation that can be attributed |
| Institutionalized cooperation | The bank and the intermediary were permanently involved in the same closing process. | Cooperation, financing concept and evidence must be cumulatively proven. |
| Concrete knowledge advantage | the bank had specific knowledge of deception/fraud and was able to recognize it | general industry risks and internal assessments are insufficient |
| Special endangerment offense | The bank created/favored an additional risk beyond the pure financing. | Bank lending practices generally remain neutral |
The evidence is decisive in this type of case. It deteriorates with each passing month because logs are deleted, chats are deactivated, and devices are reset. Process the lists immediately—one on the left opposite the bank, the other on the right within your own records.
Don't just print the original files. Metadata, email headers, file names, and timestamps often provide clearer evidence of the technical control process than the content itself. Leave the storage medium and end device as unchanged as possible; prematurely uninstalling the remote maintenance software destroys proof that it was running during the relevant period.
Regarding the deadlines: Claims for damages generally become statute-barred three years after the end of the year in which the claim arose and the creditor became aware of it or should have become aware of it without gross negligence (§§ 195, 199 German Civil Code). For rescission due to fraudulent misrepresentation, the one-year period stipulated in § 124 German Civil Code applies, while for rescission due to mistake, the requirement of immediate action under § 121 German Civil Code applies. Other claims and maximum limitation periods may differ; the shortest period determines the time limit.
The self-assessment does not replace an exam, but it can clarify the situation in just a few minutes. Even a single "no" in the first two lines significantly alters the initial situation.
| Ask | Yes No | Why the question matters |
|---|---|---|
| Did you fill out the loan application completely yourself? | ☐ / ☐ | Authorship and attribution |
| Was the word "loan" or "credit" clearly visible on the screen? | ☐ / ☐ | Explanatory awareness |
| Did a third party operate your device remotely (AnyDesk, TeamViewer, etc.)? | ☐ / ☐ | External control and evidence gathering |
| Did the perpetrator know your bank or intermediary login details? | ☐ / ☐ | Authentication and intermediary role |
| Did the money go into your own account? | ☐ / ☐ | Fulfillment of the payment obligation |
| Was the payout account held in someone else's name? | ☐ / ☐ | Effective payment instruction |
| Did the same person arrange both the loan and the investment? | ☐ / ☐ | Economic unit, cooperation |
| Did you receive complete loan documentation? | ☐ / ☐ | Cancellation period and mandatory information |
| Were there any unusual questions or warnings from the bank? | ☐ / ☐ | Knowledge and warning signals |
| Are reminders, debt collection notices, or credit reports already being sent? | ☐ / ☐ | Urgency and legal protection |
Chronology is the most important working tool for lawyers and investigating authorities. It should strictly distinguish between personal observation, document content, and later assumptions. For example: "The text message showed the amount of €25,000" is an observation; "The perpetrator filled out the application" is a conclusion that must be supported by remote access, chat, or metadata.
| Date / Time | Person / Channel | Plot | Document / Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| … | … | … | … |
| … | … | … | … |
This type of case is decided by facts that can be secured shortly after the crime and are often lost a few months later. The forensic focus takes precedence over the legal question: Remote maintenance session logs, device and IP metadata, unaltered chat/mail headers, and the on-chain trace of the forwarded currency prove who controlled the end device and where the money flowed — precisely the points at which awareness of accountability, authorization, and payment method are determined. A payment account subsequently changed to a different name and a documented remote maintenance run during the release period. These are the strongest individual findings. We secure these traces in a legally admissible manner before they are overwritten, and prepare them in such a way that the law firm and the investigating authorities can work with them immediately.
Primary sources with references; direct quotations limited to short, documented phrases. No decision directly affects the crypto loan case. As of August 2026.
This type of case hinges on technical evidence that can be secured shortly after the crime. Finanz Forensik GmbH secures this evidence in a legally admissible manner and prepares it for law firms and investigating authorities.
| Performance | What you will receive |
|---|---|
| Evidence preservation, end device & remote maintenance | Legally compliant storage of session logs, installation/access times, device and IP metadata — proof of external technical control during the release period. |
| Chat, email, and document forensics | Backup of unaltered histories including headers/metadata; screenshots with time reference; contract files in original form instead of printouts. |
| On-chain analysis of the currency | Tracing the forwarded loan amount across wallets, exchanges and off-ramps; transaction hashes and timeline for criminal charges and asset protection. |
| Payment method & account reconciliation | The processing of payment instructions, account holders and subsequent account changes — the strongest single finding in the case. |
| Legally admissible chronology | Separation of perception, document content and conclusion with evidence assignment — directly usable for law firms and investigating authorities. |
| Support for law firm & authority | Structured list of requirements for the bank (Chapter 13.1), technical explanation of the findings, answering of follow-up questions. |
We do not provide legal services. Legal assessment, declarations to the bank and intermediaries, and adherence to deadlines remain the responsibility of your law firm. We provide the technical and forensic evidence.
David Lüdtke
Managing Director · OSINT-Analyst & Crypto Forensic Expert · Financial Forensics GmbH
Court-admissible crypto transaction analysis, OSINT-based asset investigation, and expert reports for defense attorneys, insolvency administrators, and companies. Certified Crystal Expert (CECF, CEEI, CEUI). Financial Forensics Supports law firms, companies, investigative bodies and insolvency administrators — focus areas: Blockchain forensics, wallet analysis, court-admissible documentation, OSINT.
Contact: postfach@finanz-forensik.de · +49 6057 9189145 · finanz-forensik.de
We secure remote maintenance and device logs, chat and email metadata, payment method and the on-chain trace of the currency — the evidentiary basis on which awareness of declaration, authorization and payment method are determined.
You are currently viewing a placeholder content from Vimeo. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More informationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More informationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More informationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from Google Maps. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More informationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from Vimeo. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More informationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More informationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from Instagram. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More informationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from Google Maps. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More informationYou need to load content from hCaptcha to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More informationYou need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More informationYou are currently viewing a placeholder content from Turnstile. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More information
