A vulnerable man who has been scammed twice in a row must be reimbursed half of the damage from the second scam from his bank. It is true that the man acted grossly negligently, but the bank was aware of the first scam and could have intervened.
This is apparent from a binding decision of the Financial Services Disputes Committee of the Kifid. A man born in 1939 has a profile on Bullchat, a chat/dating site for men. Via that site he makes an appointment with two men at his home. They gain access to his internet banking under false pretenses. He also has to hand over his debit cards. One of the two men always goes away for a short period of time. The next morning, the man gets suspicious and checks his internet banking. Large amounts appear to have been withdrawn, more than twenty thousand euros. The man calls the bank and has his debit cards and internet banking blocked. He then contacted the bank’s fraud help desk. The bank employee says that he had to reactivate his internet banking. The man says that such a thing is difficult for him and that he will ask for help. He also reports that he has been called again by the scammers.
careless
Three weeks later, the man is again the victim of fraud. Two men came by saying that they had heard of the scam and that they want to recover the stolen money. The two men spent an hour on the man’s laptop, asking for his bank cards and driving him to various ATMs. A few days later it appears that large amounts have been debited again and the man blocks his bank cards. This time the damage is almost eighty thousand euros. In both cases, the bank refuses to reimburse the damage, because the man handled his PIN and login details carelessly.
halve
The Disputes Committee ruled that the man was grossly negligent in the first incident. He has not adhered to the regulations of safe banking and the damage is therefore for his account. According to the Disputes Committee, the situation is more nuanced in the second incident. Also in this case, the scammers somehow found out the pin code through the man. He has therefore not adhered to the safety regulations this time. You are legally negligent. On the other hand, the bank was fully aware of the facts and circumstances of the first scam. The bank was also able to see that many transactions were carried out in a short time for substantial amounts at unusual times. So the bank should have known something was wrong. That is why the Disputes Committee limits the man’s liability to fifty percent of the damage. The bank must take care of the other half. The man receives almost 40,000 euros from the bank.
Sources):
