Disappointing experience and lack of transparency
I engaged Swiss Security Solutions in 2024 for an investigation service related to a cryptocurrency fraud case. I paid CHF 5,000 based on their offer and the initial communication. Unfortunately, my experience was not positive.
Although I received one report at the beginning and another over a year later, both documents were very similar and did not provide the clear evidence or concrete actions I had expected. Despite many attempts to request updates over the course of more than a year, I rarely received replies. Important questions, such as whether specific requests to Binance had actually been submitted, remained unanswered for a long time.
Communication was inconsistent, and I often felt ignored. For the second case I entrusted to them, I never received any report at all.
After sending a formal notice, the company asked for additional money to continue the work, even though the initial results were already unsatisfactory from my perspective.
I understand that cryptocurrency investigations can be complex, but based on my personal experience, the service quality and communication did not match the expectations set during the initial contact.
This review reflects my individual experience as a paying client.
Edit :
I am compelled to respond to the company’s reply due to several inaccuracies and misleading statements contained therein. My original review remains a factual account of my personal experience as a paying client.
1. This review was reported by the company as “defamatory”, despite the fact that it is a factual description of my experience.
I consider this an attempt to suppress a legitimate negative review rather than to address the substance of the issues raised.
2. In their public response, the company shared details about my case that were not previously disclosed by me in my review.
I believe that discussions about specific case details should be handled privately and not on a public review platform.
3. The company stated that a request was sent to Binance, including a request to freeze funds.
However, despite repeated requests over time, I was never provided with any documentary evidence (such as a ticket number, official acknowledgment, or response from Binance) to substantiate this claim.
4. For more than one year, my written follow-ups and reminders were largely ignored.
The company informed me that the case was “closed” only after I sent a formal written notice (legal demand).
This raises a legitimate question: why was I not informed that the case was concluded in June 2024, when the first report was issued?
Until my formal notice, I was never told that the mandate had ended.
5. Regarding the second case, no fund tracing was performed.
The only information provided was an alleged residential address of an individual, which was irrelevant for asset recovery and did not correspond to the originally discussed scope of work.
This response is based solely on documented facts and my direct experience. It is shared in good faith to ensure transparency and to help other potential clients make an informed decision.
Edit 2
I am compelled to respond again due to repeated inaccurate statements in the company’s reply.
My review reflects my documented personal experience as a paying client.
I never requested unlimited calls, unlimited chats, or services outside the agreed scope.
I requested clarification and documentary proof of actions that were explicitly communicated to me as having been taken.
Despite being informed that a request had been sent to Binance, I was never provided with any ticket number, written confirmation, or official acknowledgment.
For more than one and a half years, my written follow-ups remained largely unanswered. I was informed that the case was “closed” only after I sent a formal legal notice. I was not informed of any closure when the initial report was issued.
Regarding the second case, I did not receive any successful tracing outcome or actionable asset recovery result. The information provided did not correspond to what had initially been discussed as the purpose of the engagement.
I have no interest in obtaining free services or damaging any company’s reputation. I am simply describing my experience so that other potential clients can evaluate expectations and communication standards before entering into a mandate.
I consider this matter closed from my side.
Reply from Swiss Security Solutions GmbH
Official Company Response
We have been operating as a professional service provider for many years. As with any long-standing business, it is inevitable that a few clients will express dissatisfaction. Based on our experience, such dissatisfaction is rarely, less than 0.1%, the result of poor service quality, but rather of unrealistic expectations regarding scope, availability, and pricing.
Some clients assume that a flat-fee mandate includes unlimited weekly calls, extensive written correspondence and chats, or ongoing reporting beyond what was contractually agreed. These expectations are not aligned with the written terms of engagement, which clearly define deliverables, communication frequency, and cost allocation. Unfortunately, in certain cases, engagement terms are not reviewed carefully or instructions are not followed.
Swiss civil law provides clear legal remedies for alleged poor performance under Art. 394 ff. of the Swiss Code of Obligations (OR). When claims cannot be substantiated through formal legal channels, because there is no valid legal reason, some individuals choose to express dissatisfaction on so-called public review platforms that do not require fact-checking or verification of contractual compliance, and do not respect EU GDPR along with EU Digital Services Act (Trustpilot is EU company) - with goal to make harm to the image of the company (service provider). This client does not write the truth, nobody asked more payment to continue the work, only for not agreed work; the client requested crypto tracing of Euro 200k and we have traced to Exchange in Malta, that was our job; We had no authorization in written signed by client to represent him anywhere - this would be issued if that was previously agreed upon. For the second case with Loss 10k, which we agreed to do pro bono - no payment to us, we delivered the address of the suspect in Switzerland, and online reporting, which is enough for the asset recovery process, as the goal of any crypto tracing is to find the suspect of the crime from KYC Form. Crypto tracing in second case was not successful and did not give any results.
We believe it is inappropriate to post untruthful reviews on Trustpilot in an attempt to damage our reputation and in order to obtain free and not agreed services. We clearly do not agree with this kind of pressure, and we do not consider this an acceptable way to conduct business with us. We closed this case prior to the review being posted on this portal, as continuing to work together was no longer possible.
We stand by our work, our contracts and agreements, GSTC, and our professional standards. Transparency, precision, and documented results remain at the core of our services and solutions. We encourage prospective clients to review our engagement terms carefully to ensure mutual understanding prior to entering into any mandate.
Swiss Security Solutions is a member of many professional organizations and networks, and has received GoGlobal Award 2025 in London, UK, as the best international security services provider, as well as other recognitions. That is a hard work.