Is www.firstcapital.com a legit bank? Someone transferred money to an account they told me to set up with this company. Now I realize this may be some type of scam.

  • 49
    100% if someone tells you to set up an account with a specific bank and then transfers money to it, it's a scam. Alert the authorities with the information you have, and be extra extra extra cautious in the future since unfortunately you've now demonstrated that you may be an "easy mark" for scammers.
    – Vicky
    Commented Jan 11 at 13:31
  • 14
    It redirects to firstcapitalcrypto.com, and then gives a silly type of connection error that indicates nobody is bothered to keep the site running. Scam IMO. Commented Jan 12 at 0:57
  • 4
    @Vicky no need to be condescending with the "easy mark" comment. Coming here after noticing a red flag and asking for advice, is not a proof (or even a sign) of being an "easy mark", quite the contrary. Commented Jan 12 at 21:09
  • 4
    @AndrewSavinykh I don't think that was meant to be condescending, just a warning that scammers are more likely to target them in the future. Commented Jan 12 at 22:30
  • 3
    @MartinSmith Yes, exactly what I meant - from the scammers' point of view, you are worth investing more time in.
    – Vicky
    Commented Jan 13 at 17:35

2 Answers 2


First Capital used to be a legitimate bank, but was taken over in 2015 and no longer exists. I expect the domain name has now been allowed to expire, and so has been grabbed by a scammer.

  • 17
    It's also not a good sign that attempts to go there result in a redirection to firstcapitalcrypto.com.
    – Doug Deden
    Commented Jan 11 at 22:25
  • 2
    The domain still shows a Creation Date of 1995-08-06T23:00:00Z, so it was probably transferred (auctioned?) before expiration. Not that the end result is too different than if the domain had expired, though.
    – Ángel
    Commented Jan 13 at 18:19

Any time someone tells you that you need to open an account with a specific bank, it's a scam.

(There are cases where a specific broker may not be, but they're unlikely to apply to anyone but a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.)

Basically, any new complication in how you access money should be viewed with suspicion.

  • Once my employer required me to use a specific brokerage for something like stock options.
    – Barmar
    Commented Jan 12 at 15:26
  • Another note: some employers in highly-regulated sectors may also require you to hold investments in accounts with institutions with which the employer has "broker feed" arrangements to proactively monitor for conflicts of interest. However, there will generally be a litany to choose from (not restricted to a single institution).
    – esqew
    Commented Jan 12 at 16:23
  • 8
    There are special cases. But view with suspicion!
    – keshlam
    Commented Jan 12 at 16:35
  • 1
    @Barmar: That's often because they're handing out RSUs, either to you or to other employees. Unlike regular stock, RSUs have strings attached, and implementing those strings may require significant coordination between the employer and the brokerage. At an absolute minimum, the employer has to trust the brokerage to enforce those conditions. By contrast, a "regular" salary or wage payment has absolutely no strings attached (other than tax withholding), so the employer can pay it into any bank that is prepared to accept direct deposit.
    – Kevin
    Commented Jan 13 at 22:23
  • @Kevin That's exactly what they were, I couldn't remember the term (it's been over 15 years).
    – Barmar
    Commented Jan 14 at 0:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .