A
Declaration of heirs
Already supplied
Both pages sent 6 May, 26 June, 29 September and 14 October.
What changed / why they ask
22 October: cannot conclusively verify the official stamp; asks an authenticated copy, all pages.
Case 01 / eToro (Europe) Ltd / Portugal → Cyprus
Received.
Then requested again.
One family’s route from a death notification to a final response that still asks for document checks.
In July, eToro acknowledged all requested documentation and forwarded the transfer for processing. In October, it confirmed the files were held, but said verification remained.
This is evidence of changing requirements and delay. It is not a finding that eToro approved every document, alleged forgery or committed fraud.
The central change / 86 days
What July said. What October still required.
28 July / receipt + processing
“all requested documentation”
The case went to the department handling closure and transfer. eToro also reserved the possibility of further requests.
That reservation matters: this was not a completed-validation notice. E23
22 October / verification open
Four headings, still no transfer date
Authenticate the deed; establish recipient authority; obtain a birth record if needed; authenticate the death record.
The supervisor apologised for “repeated and sometimes conflicting requests for documentation”. E21
Accepted vs received: the emails establish receipt of the documents and acceptance of the case for processing. We have no document-level statement of final authenticity approval that was later withdrawn. The documented reversal is from “all requested documentation” to further requirements, not proof of a revoked validation.
Document audit / requested → supplied → questioned
Which documents came back, and why?
October gives stated reasons for A, B and D. The unexplained part is why those checks surfaced after July’s acknowledgement and repeated resubmissions.
B
Authority to receive funds
Already supplied
Deed and tax registration identify the estate administrator; supplied in June and resent.
What changed / why they ask
22 October: point to the document and page proving power to receive the funds.
C
Relationship / birth record
Already supplied
Deed, tax papers and the deceased ID reverse identify the parents.
What changed / why they ask
August–September: asks relationship and bank details for both heirs. October: one birth record, only if B is not confirmed.
D
Death certificate
Already supplied
Photograph sent 24 December, 6 May and 26 June; receipt acknowledged in January and May.
What changed / why they ask
22 October: certified death copy OR official online verification code, to verify authenticity.
No-will certificate, tax records, ID documents and the heir’s bank details: receipt confirmed in October. No express final validation stated. E21
Portuguese death-certificate access is indefinite under Portaria 265/2023, arts. 2–4. This does not prove that a particular code was successfully consulted.
Reasons / facts and inference
Why the back-and-forth?
Identity, authenticity, authority
It says it must verify the deed stamp, the death record and the right of one administrator to receive funds. It does not accuse the family of forgery.
Rules applied inconsistently
The early executor/will list did not fit the family’s no-will explanation. Later requests switched between both heirs and one administrator. The photographed deed may explain a verification issue, not the whole delay.
Which check actually failed?
No technical verification result, decision on B, balance or payment date is in the reviewed record. Internal motives and deliberate obstruction remain unproved.
The full saved sequence / 22 originals + July inside a bounce
Open any step. Read what changed.
Every saved mail is included, including failed delivery, automated closure and family replies. The July message is preserved inside the 5 August mail, not as a separate original.
First notification
Death certificate photograph and tax report sent.
Two attachments. First attempt, not proof of a successfully opened support ticket.
Read evidence E01Mailbox refuses the inquiry
Automated reply says the service address is not in use and directs the family to the contact form.
This failed delivery is included in the elapsed calendar time.
Read evidence E02Contact-form case opens
Automated confirmation acknowledges the inquiry.
A support case is now evidenced; this is not document approval.
Read evidence E03Administrator must make contact
Acknowledges the death certificate; asks the executor/administrator to contact support and provide a phone number.
Stated reason: client confidentiality and legal entitlement.
Read evidence E04Administrator request repeated
Again acknowledges the death certificate; repeats the administrator-contact and phone request.
Warns that the ticket may close without a response.
Read evidence E05Ticket marked completed
Automated notice marks the ticket completed, with the option to reopen.
Administrative status is not payment.
Read evidence E06Case closed for no response
Says the account remains restricted until requested documents arrive. A quoted copy was addressed to the deceased mailbox.
No outgoing family reply is present between the January request and the May reopening.
Read evidence E07Family reopens the case
Sends death certificate and both deed pages, names both heirs and supplies contact numbers.
Three attachments verified in the original MIME message. The family asks for one complete requirements list.
Read evidence E08Reopening acknowledged
Automated confirmation creates a new support reference.
An acknowledgement, not an authenticity decision.
Read evidence E09Five-part document list
Requests notarised executor letter, notarised will, relationship proof, ID and payment details.
Payment promise is conditional: receipt AND validation, then 10 business days.
Read evidence E10Delivery failure preserved
Undeliverable wrapper preserves the correspondence.
A transport event; it is not another independent document request.
Read evidence E11Same list, again
Repeats the executor letter, will, relationship, ID and bank requirements.
Still no item-by-item finding on the Portuguese deed.
Read evidence E12Executor alternatives and old bank account
Now allows a notarised will OR executor letter and asks whether the deceased bank account remains open.
The alternative is recorded: this was not exactly the same wording as May.
Read evidence E13Fourteen files supplied
Sends deed pages, death record, no-will record, tax records and identity documents; supplies an heir bank account.
14 attachments verified. Says the old bank account is closed and explains Portuguese estate administration.
Read evidence E14All requested documentation received
Acknowledges bank details and all requested documentation; forwards the case for account closure and transfer processing.
Recovered from E15’s quoted delivery-failure message. It explicitly reserves further information/document requests. It does not say validation is complete.
Read evidence E23Both heirs requested
Asks for relationship proof and payment details for both heirs.
This saved message also contains the earlier 28 July acknowledgement, inside a delivery-failure message.
Read evidence E15Both-heirs request repeated
Again asks for relationship proof and payment details for both heirs.
No specific defect in an earlier document is explained in this message.
Read evidence E16Both-heirs request repeated again
Again asks for relationship proof and payment details for both heirs.
Third saved request with this wording after July.
Read evidence E17Formal complaint requested
Resends deed pages, tax registration and deceased ID reverse; asks payment to the estate administrator.
Four attachments verified. The legal assertions in this email are the family’s position, not a court finding.
Read evidence E18Chaser with four files
Asks for a transfer date and complaint reference by 23 October; asks for removal of the inactive mailbox.
Four attachments verified. The family also took time to reply between August and September.
Read evidence E19Management review
Says the case was forwarded to Management.
No payment date or completed validation is confirmed.
Read evidence E20Final response: received, but checks remain
Lists six document categories already held, admits repeated/conflicting requests, and sets out A–D.
A: deed stamp; B: authority to receive; C: birth record only if B fails; D: death-record authentication.
Read evidence E21Answer with existing evidence
Names the deed and tax-registration pages for B, asks for source verification of A/D and a final list or transfer date by 6 November.
Two attachments verified. No fresh document promised. This is not an acceptance of B by eToro.
Read evidence E22The family’s gaps are part of the record. No outgoing reply is saved between January’s administrator request and May’s reopening. May’s list was answered on 26 June; August requests were answered on 29 September. The calendar is not a calculation of compensable delay.
Next step / the clock does not restart
A final response is already on file.
6 November 2026
Family-requested response date. Ask for the decision on B, the balance, the exact failed checks and a transfer date. This is not a statutory deadline.
22 February 2027
Conservative referral date: four months after eToro’s final response. Another request for documents is not treated as a reset.
One evidenced case today
No mass pattern or court case is established. The next stage is comparable, independently checked family records.
Cases, law and the funding plan →Deadline source: eToro final response E21 and CySEC’s complaint route. Admissibility has additional conditions; court proceedings may affect the Ombudsman route.