In a recent judgment, the Court of Cassation judged that, in the event of a banking scam, banks had to systematically reimburse their customers unless they had evidence that they had done what it was necessary to protect them.
Scams and online frauds have become commonplace, and unfortunately many people fall into the trap. Some victims have the unpleasant surprises to wake up one morning and discover, to their great stupor, that substantial sums have mysteriously gone from their bank account. They then turn to their bank, in search of answers and, above all, to challenge these transfers.
In theory, The law is on their side Since, when a customer disputes a suspicious transaction, banking establishments are required to reimburse him within twenty-four hours, since he pays a service to ensure the security of his transactions (see our article). But, in reality, many of them refuse, accusing the victims of negligence and believing that they themselves participated in the scam. Last January, a decision of the Court of Cassation was precisely in this sense, it believing that several customers had been guilty of “serious negligence”. However, she has just said, in another case, that the banking establishment had the obligation to reimburse the stolen sum. A decision that comes to case …
Bank card fraud: a decision in favor of victims
On April 30, the Court of Cassation made a favorable opinion victims in a bank scam case. In November 2020, a client of Crédit Agricole du Finistère saw its computer being infected with a spy virus after unfortunately clicked on a link contained in a fraudulent email. An error that resulted in seven transfers debited on his bank account, between November 27 and December 3, a very small period of time. The judges of the Court of Appeal considered that the customer had committed “serious negligence” by clicking on the link, which exempted the bank from all responsibility.
But the Court of Cassation broke this decision, judging that, even before invoking the famous “serious negligence” of the customer, banking establishments should absolutely demonstrate that they had done what it was necessary in terms of surveillance and control to protect the victim’s accounts. However, it was surprised here with the lack of vigilance of the bank, which should have been alerted and detect an abnormal activity. Clearly, it is only if the judge considers, thanks to material evidence, that the establishment has nothing to blame that the negligence of the customer can be invoked and examined. It is therefore no longer possible to directly reject the responsibility of the scam on the victims. A reassuring decision in view of the current context, while attempts at bank fraud, such as the scam of the false adviser, multiply and become more and more sophisticated.