Revolut Bank Account Access Restored Following Legal Complaints
Executive Summary
An individual resident in the EU approached P&P after losing access to an account with Revolut Bank UAB in Lithuania. The bank referred to an account freezing order from a Vilnius police unit, while the client had not received an official copy of that order. A separate €1,149 debit described as a mandatory return of funds also required explanation. P&P analysed the restrictions, submitted a formal bank complaint and prepared a Lithuanian-language police request and an escalation position. Following the legal work and communication, Revolut lifted the restrictions and restored access to the funds and account operations.
Client Context and Objective
The client’s account was restricted on 24 July 2025. Access to the account, its funds and financial operations was lost.
The client sought restoration of account access and clarification of both the freezing order and the separate debit. Written and electronic approaches to the Vilnius police had gone unanswered, while Revolut referred to its obligation to comply with law-enforcement requirements.
The Restriction and Disputed Debit
The client had no official copy of the order relied on by the bank. The legal basis and continuing status of the restriction therefore required clarification.
On the day of the freeze, €1,149 was debited in favour of another individual. The client stated that no funds had been received from that person, and the statements showed no corresponding incoming payment. The bank referred to insufficient evidence to challenge a recall request. This created a separate issue concerning the basis for the debit.
P&P Work
- Analyse the basis of the restriction. P&P reviewed the bank’s position against the relevant payment-services, financial-monitoring and customer-protection framework, together with the Bank of Lithuania’s supervisory practice. This informed the questions and arguments raised in the complaint.
- Submit a formal complaint to Revolut. In December 2025, the team prepared and filed an English-language complaint. It requested confirmation of the freezing order’s validity and details, the legal basis for the €1,149 debit and an explanation of the missing police notification. It also recorded the client’s willingness to cooperate and provide AML documents.
- Prepare an official police request. A Lithuanian-language request was prepared for the Vilnius police unit using the applicable administrative format. Its wording sought clarification while protecting the client’s legal position.
- Prepare the escalation position. After Revolut rejected the complaint in its final response, P&P documented the procedural issues it identified and prepared a position for a potential complaint to the Bank of Lithuania. The team also developed the legal framework for possible court proceedings.
Roles and Responsibilities
The client’s account records and correspondence provided the factual basis for the dispute. P&P analysed the issues, prepared the formal communications and developed the escalation strategy. Revolut handled the bank complaint and subsequently restored account access. The preparation of an escalation position is distinct from a ruling by the Bank of Lithuania or a court.
Deliverables
- An English-language complaint addressing the freezing order, disputed debit and client cooperation.
- An official Lithuanian-language request for clarification from the police unit.
- A documented position on the procedural issues identified in the bank’s handling of the matter.
- A position prepared for potential Bank of Lithuania proceedings and a framework for possible court protection.
Result
Revolut lifted the account restrictions and restored access to funds and operations. The matter was resolved without being taken to court. The confirmed result concerns account access; repayment of the separate €1,149 debit is not established by the available case record.
| Before the engagement | Outcome |
|---|---|
| Account access and operations restricted; freezing-order information unavailable to the client and a separate debit disputed. | Restrictions lifted and access to funds and account operations restored without court proceedings. |
Practical Lessons
- Clarify each restriction and transaction separately. The account freeze and the disputed debit required distinct questions about their legal and factual basis.
- Build on the bank’s formal response. The rejected complaint provided a defined position against which the team could prepare further arguments and escalation options.
- Keep different outcomes separate. Restored access does not by itself confirm repayment of a disputed debit, a regulatory ruling or the cancellation of a police order.
From First Review to Structured Escalation

Free Assessment
We confirm scope, jurisdiction and the most useful next step.

Evidence Review
Documents, transactions and notices are reviewed as one chronology.

Strategy & Engagement
We define the legal and compliance route and agree the scope.

Platform or Authority Position
The structured position is submitted and escalated where appropriate.

Outcome & Next Actions
We advise on the response and measures needed to protect your position.
Clear Scope Before Engagement
The fee model is proposed after the preliminary assessment and depends on scope, jurisdiction and recovery route.

Fixed Fee
A defined price for an agreed scope of legal or compliance work.

Staged Fees
Separate fees for assessment, submissions, negotiations and escalation.

Fixed Fee + Success Component
A fixed part combined with a result-based component where appropriate.
Get a Clear View of Your Options
Tell us what happened. We aim to respond in English within one business day.
- Evidence-led first review
- EU/EEA and cross-border support
- No seed phrases or private keys required