Hello, Guest

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.
By:
Advanced search…
What's new

Case: Pending Nim Surname v. Vanguard National Bank (2025) CV 04

xXLordLyonXx

xXLordLyonXx

New member
xXLordLyonXx
xXLordLyonXx
Joined
Jun 30, 2024
Messages
6
Nim Surname, Plaintiff, represented by Lyon Law

v.

Vanguard National Bank, Defendant



Civil Complaint:

On February 12th, the Plaintiff found out that his accounts with the Defendant had been frozen. The Defendant informed the Plaintiff that there were, and I quote, "suspicious transactions" related to his accounts, and that they had frozen his accounts without prior notice. The Defendant wrongly alleges that they have this power in relation to his account holding Azalean Dollars, incorrectly applying Terms of Service for different activities across accounts.

This serves as a clear material breach of contract, as the Defendant has deliberately refused to allow the Plaintiff access to his property in a manner not consistent with the contracts the two parties agreed to that serve as the Terms of Service and User Agreements. Vanguard National Bank, the Defendant, does not have the right to freeze a client's assets, violating their own Terms of Service, simply because they do not wish to give him the funds in his account.

This case is brought forward to resolve this manner, and restore the Plaintiff immediate access to his Azalean funds.


Parties:
Plaintiff - Nim Surname, represented by Lysander Lyon
Defendant - Vanguard National Bank


Factual Allegations:
1) The Plaintiff was not notified of the freeze on his accounts, nor the suspicious transactions, until he opened a ticket on February 12th at 1:04am. Exhibit A shows the opening of this customer support ticket, while Exhibit B shows the notification of the freeze.
2) Vanguard National Bank did not close the Plaintiff's account, but froze its ability to make transactions. This is shown in Exhibit B, where the Plaintiff is told his accounts were frozen.
3) The Plaintiff was never asked to verify his transaction activity.
4) Both the Plaintiff and Vanguard National Bank are bound by the contracts that are the Terms of Service and the User Guides. This is both general law, and specifically pointed out by the Defendant in Exhibit C, where it is stated that these become binding upon use of service.
5) The Vanguard Market Access Terms of Service state that VMA can freeze accounts in its sole discretion. Exhibit D is a downloaded copy of the Vanguard Market Access ToS; this statement is present at section 12(d) of the ToS.
6) The Vanguard Market Access Terms of Service state that the word "accounts" shall be defined within the document as "the VMA accounts you have opened through connecting your discord that are subject to the terms, conditions, and agreements in this Booklet..." This is present under the Definitions section in Exhibit D.
7) The account the Plaintiff holds his Azalean Dollars in is not connected to the Vanguard Market Access system. This is shown in Exhibit E.
8) The Discover Bank User Guide states "Customers will be notified of any suspicious transactions and may be asked to verify their activity." This is shown in Exhibit F, a downloaded copy of the Discover Bank User Guide, in the second bullet point under section 7.1.
9) The Discover Bank User Guide states "Discover Bank reserves the right to close accounts at its discretion..." This is shown in Exhibit F, under section 8.1.
10) The words "freeze" and "frozen" do not appear once in the Discover Bank User Guide, nor are any similar terms used in relation to allowing Discover Bank to freeze an individual's transactions. This is shown in Exhibits G and H.
11) The Plaintiff has not been provided an estimated time of completion for when his account's funds will be released to him.
12) The Plaintiff has been provided no details as to Vanguard National Bank's "investigation," and no representation in the process.


Legal Claims:
1) The Vanguard Market Access Terms of Service, by their own definition, do not cover the Plaintiff's non-linked Discover Bank account. This is clearly proven through Exhibits D and E.
2) There is nothing in the Discover Bank Terms of Service or User Guide that allows the Defendant to unilaterally freeze the Plaintiff's account. This is shown through Exhibits F, G, H, and I, with Exhibit I being a copy of the Discover Bank ToS.
3) Thus, the Defendant has deliberately acted outside of the scope of the contracts mutually agreed to by the Defendant and the Plaintiff, resulting in a material breach of contract.
4) The Plaintiff has been unable to access his funds for multiple days, which has inhibited his ability to participate in Azalean society.


Prayer for Relief:
1) An Asset Preservation Order from the court, to prevent the Defendant from interacting with the Plaintiff's assets in any way that could compromise the funds in his account that holds the Azalean Dollars.
2) A ruling that Vanguard National Bank has committed a material breach of their contractual obligations, that orders the immediate unfreezing of the Plaintiff's assets and transfer to his person.
3) Compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000, to cover the harm incurred to the Plaintiff for being unable to access his funds for a week.
4) Special damages in the amount of $10,000, to cover the attorney's fees the Plaintiff would not have incurred without the Defendant's actions.
5) Payment by the Defendant of all court fees incurred by the Plaintiff.


Verification:

I, Lysander Lyon, hereby affirm that the allegations in the complaint AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the plaintiff's knowledge, information, and belief and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.

Exhibit I, a copy of the Discover Bank ToS, is linked here - https://docs.google.com/document/d/11AV8lJjEgRY3FLbEXQAWYZlle0MLld7_5kzXcjT3jYI/edit?usp=sharing
 

Attachments

  • Nim Lawsuit Exhibit A.jpg
    Nim Lawsuit Exhibit A.jpg
    85.7 KB · Views: 19
  • Nim Lawsuit Exhibit B.jpg
    Nim Lawsuit Exhibit B.jpg
    87.9 KB · Views: 13
  • Nim Lawsuit Exhibit C.jpg
    Nim Lawsuit Exhibit C.jpg
    79.9 KB · Views: 14
  • Nim Lawsuit Exhibit D.pdf
    958.7 KB · Views: 1
  • Nim Lawsuit Exhibit E.png
    Nim Lawsuit Exhibit E.png
    51.9 KB · Views: 12
  • Nim Lawsuit Exhibit F.pdf
    192 KB · Views: 2
  • Nim Lawsuit Exhibit G.jpg
    Nim Lawsuit Exhibit G.jpg
    89 KB · Views: 12
  • Nim Lawsuit Exhibit H.jpg
    Nim Lawsuit Exhibit H.jpg
    90.1 KB · Views: 16

Writ of Summons

Azalea Isles Civil Court (CR)

Case No. CV-25-04

Plaintiff: Nim Surname (Nimq_)
Defendant: Vanguard National Bank

The Defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of Nim Surname v. Vanguard National Bank. Failure to respond within 48 hours may result in a default judgement.

Both parties are ask to familiarize themselves with the relevant court documents, including proper formats, as well as the laws referenced in the complaint. Ensure that you comply with any court orders.
​
Signed,
Hon. Justice Raymond West
​
 
Last edited:
The Defendant, Vanguard National Bank, must present an answer to the complaint, as outlined in the Case Structure. They have 48 hours to do so.
 
Your honor I would like to request an extension of 24 hours due to having to work all weekend.
 
Your Honor,

While I recognize and understand that extenuating (real-world) circumstances can complicate these trials, I would like to remind the court that we are now 12 full days away from when I first filed this lawsuit.

The Plaintiff has provided extensive evidence to back up factual and legal claims.

I am hereby amending the Prayer for Relief to compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000, due to this extended timeframe now making it over two weeks, nearly three, that the Plaintiff has been without access to his funds. The special damages are being amended to $15,000, due to an increased legal burden due to the greater length of this case.

However, amending the damages does not address a key part of our Prayer for Relief. As listed in the Prayer for Relief, we requested an Asset Preservation Order, to prevent any harm being done to the Plaintiff's assets held in the account wrongfully frozen by the Defendant for the duration of this trial. The Defendant may need additional time, but preservation of assets is critical for the mental well-being of my client, and the physical well-being of his assets. I am requesting an immediate ruling on the request for an Asset Preservation Order, freezing the Plaintiff's account with the Defendant in its entirety, so that the disputed funds in question will not see any alteration until a verdict is reached.

Thank you for your time and consideration.
 
The extension request has been granted for an additional 24 hours. The Defendant is asked to please respond within such times.
 
Answer to Civil Complaint

Defendant: Vanguard National Bank
Plaintiff: Nim Surname, represented by Lysander Lyon

Answer:

Vanguard National Bank (hereinafter "Defendant") submits this response to the Complaint filed by Nim Surname (hereinafter "Plaintiff") and denies all allegations set forth therein except as expressly admitted.

General Denial​

Pursuant to the applicable rules of civil procedure, Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint unless expressly admitted herein.

Response to Factual Allegations:​

  1. Denied. The Plaintiff was informed of the freeze on their account after a routine audit revealed suspicious transactions involving their account. These transactions involved illicitly obtained funds from the Vanguard Market Access (VMA) platform, which were then transferred to their Discover Bank account in an attempt to evade detection.
  2. Admitted in part, denied in part. It is true that Plaintiff's account was frozen rather than closed. However, the freeze was implemented in accordance with fraud prevention and compliance policies after it was determined that the Plaintiff had transferred funds obtained through exploitation of a bug within the VMA system.
  3. Denied. The Plaintiff was subject to a routine fraud investigation in accordance with banking regulations and security measures. Verification of transactions was not necessary at the time because the funds were already identified as originating from an illicit source—a violation of the VMA Terms of Service.
  4. Denied. Plaintiff and Defendant are bound by the Terms of Service governing both Vanguard National Bank and Vanguard Market Access (VMA). Plaintiff agreed to abide by these Terms upon creating an account and utilizing the Defendant’s financial services.
  5. Admitted. The Vanguard Market Access Terms of Service allow for account freezes at the sole discretion of the platform in cases involving suspected fraudulent or illicit activity.
  6. Denied. The Plaintiff's Discover Bank account and their activities on VMA are interconnected for the purposes of fraud detection and security measures. Transactions originating from VMA and entering Discover Bank accounts are still subject to investigation if flagged as fraudulent.
  7. Denied. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff knowingly transferred illicit funds from the VMA platform to their Discover Bank account in an attempt to evade detection and circumvent asset recovery measures. This transaction was not legitimate and falls under the fraud prevention policies outlined in the Terms of Service.
  8. Denied. Plaintiff was notified in due course, and the bank exercised its right to freeze the account to prevent the laundering of funds obtained through illicit means.
  9. Denied. The Defendant asserts that the bank has discretionary authority to take measures to protect against financial fraud, including freezing transactions where necessary. While the term "freeze" may not be explicitly stated in the Discover Bank User Guide, fraud prevention policies inherently provide such discretion.
  10. Denied. The Defendant followed internal procedures and compliance protocols in good faith to protect the integrity of the financial system.
  11. Denied. The Plaintiff was informed that their funds were under investigation, and an estimated time for completion was not provided as investigations of financial fraud require due diligence and cannot be bound by arbitrary deadlines.
  12. Denied. The Plaintiff has no legal right to dictate the terms of the fraud investigation. The Defendant has acted within its rights and authority to investigate the exploitation of a security vulnerability on VMA.

Affirmative Defenses:​

  1. Violation of Terms of Service: Plaintiff knowingly violated the Vanguard Market Access Terms of Service by engaging in fraudulent activity, specifically by abusing a bug on the platform to obtain illicit funds.
  2. Attempted Money Laundering: Plaintiff attempted to circumvent detection by transferring fraudulently obtained funds from the VMA platform to their Discover Bank account and further into CityRP (Azalea Isles) to avoid recovery efforts.
  3. Right to Freeze Accounts: The Defendant exercised its contractual right to freeze accounts involved in suspicious financial activity to prevent further illicit transactions.
  4. No Breach of Contract: Defendant has not committed a material breach of contract, as banking and financial security policies take precedence over any implied customer rights when fraud is detected.
  5. Public Interest & Regulatory Compliance: Financial institutions are required to prevent fraudulent transactions and adhere to anti-money laundering (AML) regulations. Defendant acted in compliance with industry standards.

Prayer for Relief:​

Defendant requests the following relief:

  1. Dismissal of Plaintiff's Complaint with Prejudice due to the illicit origin of the funds and the Plaintiff's violation of Terms of Service.
  2. Denial of all monetary damages sought by the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff has no lawful claim to the funds in question.
  3. An Order for Asset Forfeiture, granting Defendant the authority to recover and return the illicitly obtained funds to Vanguard Market Access to rectify the exploitation of the platform.
  4. Any other relief this Court deems just and proper, including legal costs incurred by the Defendant in addressing this baseless complaint.

Verification:​

I, Nexalin, hereby affirm that the allegations in this Answer AND all subsequent statements made in court are true and correct to the best of the Defendant's knowledge, information, and belief, and that any falsehoods may bring the penalty of perjury.
 

Attachments

  • 1740987159556.png
    1740987159556.png
    114.1 KB · Views: 16
Your Honor,

As has already been made clear by the defense's denial of basic facts, in this case I will prove to the court that my client, Nim Surname, has been woefully mistreated by Vanguard National Bank.

The Defendant lists "fraud and compliance policies" as their reasoning for wronging the Plaintiff, but this is nothing more than a scare tactic attempted to intimidate this court into ruling into their favor. Terms of Service act as a binding contract, but only where the Terms themselves say they are bound, and of course assuming they do not violate the unconscionability principle. The Vanguard Market Access Terms of Service clearly state that they only apply to VMA accounts, not Discover Bank accounts.

If businesses can turn around when being sued and name amorphous policies stated nowhere in their relevant Terms of Service, and then blatantly deny that those Terms of Service are binding on the business just because it is inconvenient for said business, Azalea invites complete and total financial ruin. Businesses do not have a right to name internal, non-publicized, "policies" that are not present within the contract as reasons for violating it.

The evidence is clear, and will be proven so throughout the trial. I look forward to proving to the court that, by their own Terms of Service, the Defendant is guilty of a material breach of contract.
 
Thank you for the prompt response. The Defendant may now present their opening statement. They have 48 hours to do so.
 
Your Honor, this case is about fraud and attempted theft, not a contract dispute. The Plaintiff, Nim Surname, abused a bug in Vanguard Market Access (VMA) to generate money illegally and then moved those funds to a different nation to try and keep them from being recovered. When we discovered this, we acted responsibly by freezing the account to stop the fraud and begin an investigation.

The Plaintiff now claims we had no right to do this, but our fraud prevention policies allow us to act when we detect suspicious activity, no matter where the money is sent. The evidence will show that the Plaintiff knew exactly what they were doing, calling it "money printing" and deliberately trying to avoid detection.

Vanguard National Bank followed the rules to protect our platform and stop financial crimes. The Plaintiff has no legal claim to these funds, and we ask the court to dismiss this case and allow us to recover the stolen money.
 
Thank you to both parties for your opening statements. The Plaintiff and Defence have 48 hours to provide a list of witnesses, if any, to support their case.
 
My apologies for the slight delay, Your Honor.

The Plaintiff would like to question Nexalin, as a witness.
 
xXLordLyonXx said:
My apologies for the slight delay, Your Honor.

The Plaintiff would like to question Nexalin, as a witness.
Click to expand...
It has been brought to my attention that per the Miscellaneous Changes & Foreign Affairs Omnibus Act, you (or your client) will unfortunately be required to pay any witness summoned a total sum of $250 for their initial summons, and $50 for every question asked

"(ii) Witnesses must be paid $250 for their initial summons and $50 for every question asked. Witnesses' costs will be paid by the individual who called the witness, and question costs will be paid by the individual asking the question."

Please confirm to the Court that you are agreeable to this cost before we issue a summons.
 
Under the understanding, Your Honor, that this is also counted as a court fee, and thus we would be paid by the Defendant in the event of a successful verdict in favor of the Plaintiff, we find that agreeable.

Given that it can be difficult to know how many questions will be asked of a witness in advance, I would request that Your Honor allow us to postpone payment until questions have concluded, and give us 72 hours after that period to make the payment. This will prevent an undue burden on the Plaintiff of having to coordinate multiple payment times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top