Financial exploitation intake that captures control and timing up
Ask whether the victim is 60 or older, whether money moved without permission, and how recently it happened, then collect bank statements and identifying details on the suspected person before a consultation ever gets booked.
The exact intake your financial exploitation leads complete
This is the real 7-question guided intake for Financial Exploitation — the same flow your customers finish before you ever pick up the phone.
What a qualified financial exploitation lead should tell you
A claim that money or property belonging to an older adult or vulnerable adult was taken, transferred, or controlled without valid consent, often by a caregiver, family member, or trusted associate — the intake needs to establish the victim's age/vulnerability, whether consent was absent, and whether a real financial loss occurred.
- Person Who May Have
- Someone Take, Use, Or
- This Cause Real Financial
- Any This Happen Within
- Know Who Did It
- Affected Person, Their Legal
The questions your team needs answered
Every financial exploitation intake asks these — and why each one matters.
| Question | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| Is the person who may have been taken advantage of age 60 or older (or a vulnerable adult with a disability)? | Confirms the matter falls under elder/vulnerable-adult financial exploitation law rather than a general fraud or contract dispute. |
| Did someone take, use, or transfer this person’s money or property without permission (or by tricking or pressuring them)? | Establishes the core element of exploitation — that consent was absent or obtained through pressure or deception. |
| Did this cause a real financial loss (for example, missing money, unpaid bills, unusual withdrawals, or property transferred)? | Distinguishes a matter with a concrete, provable loss from one that is still speculation without documented harm. |
| Did any of this happen within the last 3 years? | Flags whether the conduct falls inside a workable timeframe, since older incidents may raise statute-of-limitations concerns. |
| Do you know who did it (or can you identify a likely person or business involved)? | Cases with an identified suspect are typically more actionable and quicker to evaluate than those requiring investigation to name a perpetrator. |
| Was the person who may have been exploited dependent on, trusting of, or controlled by the person who took the money (such as a caregiver, family member, friend, or financial helper)? | A dependent or trust-based relationship between victim and suspect points to undue influence, a key factor in exploitation claims. |
| Are you the affected person, their legal guardian/conservator, or someone authorized to help them (such as an agent under a power of attorney)? | Confirms the submitter has legal standing to bring or authorize the matter before the firm commits consultation time. |
How Cliont scores financial exploitation leads
Every answer is weighted automatically — no manual review required.
Value signals
- Person Who May Have: yes
- Someone Take, Use, Or: yes
- This Cause Real Financial: yes
- Any This Happen Within: yes
- Know Who Did It: yes
- Affected Person, Their Legal: yes
See the lead your team receives
Financial Exploitation Lead
From first click to qualified lead
Follow people and businesses seeking counsel through one smooth, guided flow.
They land & meet you
Your video greeting plays instantly — a real face instead of a blank form.
They explain the matter
Smart questions adapt to their matter and capture the full scope.
They share the documents
The facts, dates, and any paperwork come attached, so you can assess the matter before the consultation.
You get a ready lead
Scored and qualified — waiting for you to win it.
Built for financial exploitation workflows
| Cliont capability | Financial Exploitation application |
|---|---|
| Weighted scoring logic | Combines the unauthorized-transfer, financial-loss, and recency answers so a documented, recent, six-figure-style transfer scores well above a vague or dated suspicion. |
| Relationship-aware branching | Surfaces whether the victim was dependent on or controlled by the suspected person, which helps the firm spot undue-influence dynamics common to caregiver and family exploitation cases. |
| Standing verification | Checks whether the submitter is the victim, a guardian/conservator, or an authorized agent, so reports from unrelated third parties are flagged before a consultation slot is offered. |
| Document intake | Collects bank statements and power-of-attorney or guardianship documents alongside the questionnaire so the firm has evidence in hand ahead of the first call. |
Common financial exploitation lead scenarios
Caregiver drained an account
A hired caregiver had access to accounts and made unauthorized withdrawals from a dependent, trusting client within the last year — every high-value signal fires, so the intake routes this straight through as urgent.
Loss confirmed, perpetrator unknown
Money is missing and the timeline is recent, but the family can't yet name who took it — the intake still captures a strong case while flagging that identification work will be needed before consultation.
Transfer occurred outside the window
A suspicious property transfer happened over three years ago, which lowers the score against the recency signal even though the other exploitation indicators are present, letting the firm weigh timing risk before booking.
Concerned neighbor, no standing
A concerned third party reports suspected exploitation but isn't the victim, a guardian, or an agent under power of attorney, so the intake flags the authority gap rather than passing it through as a client-ready matter.
Suspicion without documented loss
A family member suspects something is wrong with a parent's finances but can't yet point to a specific missing amount or unauthorized transaction, so the intake captures the concern as a lead worth a follow-up rather than an immediate priority.
Connect Cliont to your workflow
Send leads
HubSpot, HighLevel, Salesforce, JobNimbus
Book matters
Google Calendar, Outlook Calendar, Calendly
Notify your team
Email, SMS, Slack
Automate follow-up
Zapier, Webhooks, API
Simple, transparent pricing
Choose the plan that works for your business.
Professional
Unlimited intake forms and leads for your growing business.
- Unlimited intake forms
- Custom video greetings
- AI-powered voice bot
- English + Spanish support
- Automatic lead scoring
- Digital estimates & e-signatures
- Photo, video & file upload
- Advanced analytics dashboard
Pay Per Lead
Only pay when you receive a qualified lead.
- Unlimited intake forms
- Custom video greetings
- AI-powered voice bot
- English + Spanish support
- Automatic lead scoring
- Digital estimates & e-signatures
- Photo, video & file upload
- Charged only for submitted leads
More elder law intake templates
Financial Exploitation lead-intake FAQs
What happens if the person filling out the intake doesn't know who took the money?
The intake still captures the case and scores it on the other signals present, but not being able to identify a likely person or business lowers the score relative to a matter where the suspect is already known.
Does the intake flag exploitation that happened more than three years ago?
Yes — the intake asks whether the activity happened within the last three years, and answers outside that window are scored lower so your team can weigh potential statute-of-limitations issues before offering a consultation.
Can the intake tell whether the person submitting the form actually has authority to act?
It asks directly whether the submitter is the affected person, their guardian or conservator, or an authorized agent under a power of attorney, so reports from third parties without standing are distinguishable from client-ready leads.
How does the intake weigh a caregiver or family relationship between the victim and the suspected person?
A dependent, trusting, or controlled relationship between the victim and the person who took the funds is treated as a meaningful signal, since undue influence and caregiver relationships are common in exploitation matters.
What should a prospective client upload before the consultation?
The intake can collect bank or account statements showing the suspicious activity, any power of attorney or guardianship paperwork, and identifying details about the suspected person so your firm reviews documentation before the first call.
Can the intake separate a confirmed financial loss from a general concern about mismanagement?
Yes — it asks specifically whether the situation caused a real financial loss such as missing money, unusual withdrawals, or transferred property, which scores higher than a vague suspicion without a documented loss.
Turn financial exploitation visitors into qualified cases
Give every financial exploitation visitor a guided intake instead of a dead contact form — and get a scored, qualified lead before you book a consultation.