All cases where banks will not reimburse you for checking account, ATM and credit card fraud

    18
    0
    All cases where banks will not reimburse you for checking account, ATM and credit card fraud

    The Court of Cassation ruled that in the case Phishing scamThe responsibility lies with the customer, not with the bank. This principle ensures that credit institutions are partially shielded from any claims for damages made by defrauded online account holders. The judges ruled on the case, which had already been dealt with by a ruling by the Palermo Court of Appeal.

    A customer sued the bank after being forced to repudiate a wire transfer made by a fraudster who took over his account. In the first instance, the Palermo court ordered the bank to reimburse the customer for the amount stolen, holding that the credit institution had not taken all sufficient security measures to prevent damage.

    The Palermo Court of Appeal overturned the ruling and upheld the Court of CassationBank disclaimer, declaring that the client’s appeal is inadmissible. But let’s see all the details better:

    • Checking account, debit and credit card scams: When banks don’t pay

    • Banking rules regarding refunds for checking account, debit and credit cards

    Checking account, debit and credit card scams: When banks don’t pay

    The Supreme Court has The appeal of two checking account holders was denied who have had €6,000 stolen from their checking account due to a wire transfer made electronically by a third person. The court of first instance accepted the customers’ application for compensation, arguing that the bank had not taken all technically appropriate security measures to prevent harm to the account holders.

    The Court of Appeal overturned the decision, stating that Service security Bancoposta online is guaranteed by computer systems certified by specific bodies, in compliance with strict international standards. The bank warned its customers of direct responsibility for keeping their login credentials, and provided useful information to avoid computer fraud, such as phishing.

    In this case, the responsibility for the theft lies with the account holders, since they themselves provided the access tokens (user ID, password, and PIN) to the hacker. Banks are protected when adopted Technically appropriate security measures and provide clear information to their customers regarding the protection of their login credentials. In practice, fraudulent acquisition of access data is not sufficient to exclude account holders’ fault.

    Banking rules regarding refunds for checking account, debit and credit cards

    The Italian Banks Association issued a circular referring to the latest of them Court of Cassation decision Regarding the unwise and negligent behavior of current account holders.

    The circular asserts that, based on the decision of the Supreme Court justices, the mediator is not required to provide evidence that: The discount has been authorized by the account holders. The security features of the broker’s computer system to carry out remote banking transactions provided prima facie evidence that the user name, PIN and password – which the appellants claimed not to have been used – had been used by a third party after an illegal collection operation.

    Stay tuned!
    Follow us on Google News by clicking here and then clicking on He follows top right

    Previous article$17M theft: Apple employee ends up in jail | Worldwide scam
    Next articleAsia, Israel and the United Kingdom. DeSantis’ near-candidate tour
    "Explorer. Devoted travel specialist. Web expert. Organizer. Social media geek. Coffee enthusiast. Extreme troublemaker. Food trailblazer. Total bacon buff."

    LEAVE A REPLY

    Please enter your comment!
    Please enter your name here