3 ms·

I've heard those banking in the US should approach these incidents as "clerical errors" during the initial report. This terminology places the onus on the insti

I've heard those banking in the US should approach these incidents as "clerical errors" during the initial report. This terminology places the onus on the institution to investigate and correct the matter unless or until proved to be the fault of the client. This is in contrast to the client reporting "identity theft" or "fraud" when they see an unauthorized charge, which makes it an at-fault issue for fraud & liability. I thought it seemed believable, but can anyone confirm whether this represents actual internal banking policy?

nxzero 10y ago
Intentionally reporting a crime as an accident is fraudulent and won't change the outcome. Key to avoiding fraud is good security and financial controls by ALL parties involved based on valid threat models and risk analysis.
- washadjeffmad 10y ago
  Right, but so is relying on lack of awareness of internal policies to misrepresent client concerns in the bank's favor, for an example. A client doesn't know an unexpected transaction not to be a clerical error any more than they know it to be identity theft. So it's not exactly nefarious not to immediately and unnecessarily claim culpability by using incorrect terminology. The prevalence of advertisement by banks for fraud protection and identity theft services creates a situation where people are likely to assume unexpected (or unrecognized) transactions are always the concern of the division of the bank that handles "identity theft", and that the correct way to have it investigated is to call those transactions "identity theft", whether or not they are. From how it was explained to me, using "clerical error" passes the request through an additional filter where the bank attempts to determine whether it was at fault before redirecting the request. It's the difference between starting out by saying "I made a mistake" and "a mistake was made", which could be important later. I hope you understand that I wasn't condoning fraud, but that people shouldn't be quick to implicitly admit liability for what may not be their own mistakes.

nxzero 10y ago

Intentionally reporting a crime as an accident is fraudulent and won't change the outcome. Key to avoiding fraud is good security and financial controls by ALL parties involved based on valid threat models and risk analysis.

washadjeffmad 10y ago
Right, but so is relying on lack of awareness of internal policies to misrepresent client concerns in the bank's favor, for an example. A client doesn't know an unexpected transaction not to be a clerical error any more than they know it to be identity theft. So it's not exactly nefarious not to immediately and unnecessarily claim culpability by using incorrect terminology. The prevalence of advertisement by banks for fraud protection and identity theft services creates a situation where people are likely to assume unexpected (or unrecognized) transactions are always the concern of the division of the bank that handles "identity theft", and that the correct way to have it investigated is to call those transactions "identity theft", whether or not they are. From how it was explained to me, using "clerical error" passes the request through an additional filter where the bank attempts to determine whether it was at fault before redirecting the request. It's the difference between starting out by saying "I made a mistake" and "a mistake was made", which could be important later. I hope you understand that I wasn't condoning fraud, but that people shouldn't be quick to implicitly admit liability for what may not be their own mistakes.