4 ms·
From banking law about 10 years back now, I would expect that the bank would be on the hook for Deborah's transfers in the first story. Deborah didn't in fact a
by piker 4y ago
From banking law about 10 years back now, I would expect that the bank would be on the hook for Deborah's transfers in the first story. Deborah didn't in fact authorize the transfers, and it's the banks systems that failed in detecting that. Banks are heavily regulated around these things, especially debit cards (although perhaps wires are different), and I would have taken that case if I were a plaintiff's lawyer. Seems to me the bank will settle with her for a decent chunk of that money. (As opposed to where the CEO/COO gets tricked and does in fact intend to authorize a wire to someone who turns out to be a fraudster.)
- codesections 4y ago> From banking law about 10 years back now, I would expect that the bank would be on the hook for Deborah's transfers in the first story. … I would have taken that case if I were a plaintiff's lawyer. I disagree, for two reasons. First, an outside-view argument: lawyers who currently practice in that field apparently disagree: > Deborah reached out to more than thirty attorneys. Only one called her back. Deborah’s eldest brother consulted another, who called her situation “a terminal case.” “There’s no life here,” he said. Her claim was dying, if not already dead. Second, on the merits: most of the fraud protections have requirements that the defrauded customer notify the bank promptly (either after the fraudulent transfer or after the next bank statement). See, e.g. [0]. It looks like that didn't happen here. [0] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/1005/6/ https://www.consumerfinance.gov/rules-policy/regulations/100...