3 ms·
Especially they shouldn't treat their customers like children. Warn him of the possible fraud, let him sign some form of agreement but then send the money.
by croes 2y ago
Especially they shouldn't treat their customers like children.
Warn him of the possible fraud, let him sign some form of agreement but then send the money.
- llm_trw 2y agoThe point is that they have no idea who they are warning of fraud.
- wruza 2y agoI don’t think that’s the point, unless their protocols allow to disclose information to and request proofs from a presumably omnipotent ai scammer.
- tsukikage 2y ago> Warn him of the possible fraud, let him sign some form of agreement Unfortunately, banks that used to take this approach have been stung by people who listened to the warning, signed the agreement, got defrauded, sued the bank /and won/.
- croes 2y agoBlocking a customer to access his money is also a reason to sue and as a bigger negative effect on other customers. I think most people would be surprised you can win a case if you have been warned. But if you block my money that's a lot bigger issue.
- miohtama 2y agoThe new UK law does not allow this, the new passed law is explicit that banks are forced to reimburse. Revolut customers are forced to take selfies "this is a scam" and they still send the money, and ask it back: https://x.com/moo9000/status/1790275729634029798 https://x.com/moo9000/status/1790275729634029798 As discussed in length in here (now downvoted): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41273554 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41273554