On 24 April 2025, the Dutch law firm BarentsKrans formally accepted a mandate to represent EFRI and Nxx van Rxx in an appeal against Payvision/ING — a case involving more than 600 victims of large-scale online investment fraud from across Europe.
Only three weeks later — and just hours after EFRI expressed serious concerns about the handling of the case and formally requested concrete deliverables — the firm unilaterally terminated the mandate, without warning, without any transition, and without having delivered even a first draft of the appeal submission.
We are publishing this statement not to escalate. We are doing it because silence would be a betrayal of those 600+ victims, and of the public trust in legal professionalism.
What happened in brief:
BarentsKrans partner Mr. William Schonewille, who presented himself as an expert in large-scale mass harm cases, appeared confident that an informal agreement with opposing counsel Payvision would allow him to delay the proceedings for several months. Based on that expectation — never shared or discussed with us upfront — he took on the case and assured us that time would not be an issue.
When EFRI expressed serious concerns about an unnecessary extension, and clearly insisted on a limited extension (maximum four weeks) Schonewille suddenly shifted focus:
He claimed that he advises to ask for at least three months as the stance of EFRI in the case requires full supportive evidence for all victims represented by EFRI. This was puzzling — as the first-instance filing had been a declaratory judgement, not a performance claim. The legal requirements had not changed, and no such documents for all victims represented by EFRI in this case had been requested before 7 May by Schonewille.
On 8 May, Payvision officially opposed any extension — citing a contact from BarentsKrans on 18 March 2025 where the firm had (without our knowledge) already asked Payvision whether it would object to BarentsKrans acting for a claimant in a lawsuit against them. This was the first time we learned that we learned about an existing conflict of interest with Payvision (the defendant) and that Payvision had been consulted (was asked for permission) by the office of Schonewille, before we even formally engaged BarendsKrans/Schonewille.
After this revelation and considering that the deadline for the appeal could only be extended to June 3th, Mr. Schonewille tried to limit the scope of the appeal to Nxx van Rxx only, arguing that arguing the case for EFRI (with so many victims) was not feasible due to “time pressure”.
EFRI disagreed (again we only asked for a declaratory action in the first instance, so no need to substantiate ALL victims) and we offered all possible cooperation to solve the alleged timing issue, including providing a legal opinion and complete documentation.
Instead of responding, Mr. Schonewille resigned from the mandate just three hours after we expressed serious concerns about his handling of the case and asked for a timetable and a first draft of the appeal.
What makes this case serious!
The entire legal file had been submitted five weeks earlier (21 March).
No substantive concerns about the legal viability of the case were raised until after we refused to accept any unnecessary delay.
No team was assigned, no legal memorandum was delivered, no outline submitted.
A hidden conflict check (request for permission (!)) with the opposing party was conducted, and its existence was only revealed when it caused serious trouble to the case and it was too late to act.
We engaged Mr. Schonewille based on his background in large-scale investor protection and collective redress.
However, what followed was marked by a massive lack of transparency on an existing conflict of interest, unclear communication, shifting strategies without explanation and an abrupt withdrawal — all of which occurred at a critical stage of the proceedings and to the detriment of over 600 affected consumers – already scammed once.
Why this matters!
This is not just about one lawyer or one appeal. It is about how a major Dutch law firm chose to walk away from 600+ fraud victims mid-procedure, without delivering, without warning, and after having already accepted full payment.
If this is how Dutch legal institutions handle collective investor harm cases — and particularly consumer cases with international scope — then something fundamental is broken.
Next Steps!
EFRI will file a formal complaint with the relevant Dutch Bar Association and reserves all rights to seek full redress for the damage caused. We will also inform regulatory bodies and our partners, and provide details and evidence. Honestly, we are really concerned about the approach applied by BarentsKrans/Schonewille. We believe the events raise serious questions about professional responsibility and whether such conduct meets the standards required to maintain legal licensure.
We will continue to document and disclose what happens, not as an act of vengeance, but as an obligation to those we represent.
This must not happen again.
We remain committed to protecting the rights of victims and to holding those accountable who fail in that duty — wherever they may sit.
We do not give up and - neither should you.
The sudden withdrawal by BarentsKrans has undoubtedly caused confusion and concern.
But no matter the setback — EFRI will continue to fight for more than 600 victims of the BARAK and LENHOFF fraud scheme and its payment facilitators Payvision/ING.
We are already working on different legal strategies ( and alternative representation. We are not giving up — and we ask you not to give up either.
We have faced institutional resistance before. We have dealt with banks, regulators, and legal roadblocks. And we will overcome this, too — with transparency, determination, and your continued support.
If you are one of the victims affected by Payvision and need information or support, we are here. Our mission has not changed:
To bring justice to those who were defrauded — and to hold those accountable who enabled it.
