3 ms·
This happens all the time with wire transfers. It's no different. Banks don't care. Example: https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2018/05/24/central-florida-woman
by staplers 6y ago
This happens all the time with wire transfers. It's no different. Banks don't care.
Example: https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2018/05/24/central-florida-woman-loses-61000-in-wire-transfer/ https://www.clickorlando.com/news/2018/05/24/central-florida...
- remmargorp64 6y agoI don't understand how banks can claim to have federal FDIC-insured protection of $250,000 per depositor if they don't actually reimburse you when a simple wire transfer fraud happens??
- dragonwriter 6y agoBecause the insurance is against the bank being unable to pay deposits due to bank insolvency. The FDIC does not insure depositors against wire transfer fraud.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- remmargorp64 6y agoI did some more research and it looks like the EFTA (Electronic Fund Transfer Act) protects electronic funds transfers (EFTs) in bank accounts, not the FDIC. https://www.thebalance.com/banking-fraud-protection-315828 https://www.thebalance.com/banking-fraud-protection-315828
- dwighteb 6y agoI didn't see where the banks are at fault in the above article. It appeared that the woman received a fraudulent email on where to wire the money. This fraudulent email did not come from the banks. So, how could they be liable if she provided them bad information? GIGO. I'm not saying banks care, just this article doesn't highlight that very well.
- staplers 6y agoThe comment i replied to implied the current fiat system has checks and balances that can help prevent fraud and scammers. I'm more highlighting that both crypto and traditional banking are similar in the transfer mechanism than saying banks should be held liable.