4 ms·
Zelle can write that water are dry, it will not make it so. The customer intended to authorize a non-scammy transfer, but was scammed into authorizing himself i
by snotrockets 4y ago
Zelle can write that water are dry, it will not make it so. The customer intended to authorize a non-scammy transfer, but was scammed into authorizing himself into a fraud. As such, regulation E holds.
And if there's something bank fears is someone reminding their regulator the bank may not be following regulation to the letter.
It has been made very clear that regulation E is meant to held banks responsible for misuse of electronic services. For example, if you are coerced to draw money out of an ATM, regulation E holds, even as you authorized the withdrawal with your card and PIN code (it also makes perfect sense: there's assumption the same wouldn't be as easy had you had to use a teller for that withdrawal).
- ceejayoz 4y ago> As such, regulation E holds. I've cited the exact wording of Regulation E to you elsewhere; it's pretty clear this scenario is not an unauthorized transfer.
- snotrockets 4y agoIt isn't. Law and regulation are interpreted by intent, not by a google search (also see official interpretation 2(m)-4 there)
- ceejayoz 4y ago> Law and regulation are interpreted by intent Nothing in Regulation E indicates an intent to cover intentional transfers by the account holder to scammers. Quote something specific if you disagree. > also see official interpretation 2(m)-4 there None of those scenarios match "I willingly sent money to something that turned out to be a scam". At all. Each example in that interpretation is that of an unintentional transfer - bank employees doing it, stolen devices, being under duress.