BNP Paribas will have to return the 54,500 euros stolen by criminals from one of its clients in 2019. After a long judicial battle, the Court of Cassation issued a ruling that sets a precedent and confirms that, in many cases, it is up to the bank to reimburse to clients who are victims of fraud by the false bank advisor.
We remind you that this scam, whose victims increase every year, consists of calling your victim pretending to be your banking advisor or one of your colleagues. The scenario is usually the same: the scammer makes the victim believe that their bank account is the subject of questionable activity and asks them to delete transfer recipients so that new ones can be registered.
But in reality, the victim, unknowingly, replaces the legitimate accounts with those of the scammer, who also asks by phone for the security numbers received by SMS to validate these new beneficiaries. Often, he himself accesses the victim’s account to make these transfers, thanks to hacking their data through fraudulent emails (phishing).
Don’t believe your bank
But what is the bank’s responsibility? The latter may refuse to reimburse a client in case of “gross negligence”, specifies article L133-19 of the Monetary and Financial Code. A law rightly mentioned by BNP Paribas, considering that responding to a third party’s orders by telephone and validating transactions yourself constituted gross negligence.
This is also the opinion of the Court of Cassation, which refuted BNP Paribas’ argument, due to the use of “spoofing” software by fraudsters. These very widespread tools allow you to view any phone number with a few clicks. Starting with the victim’s bank branch, to better reassure her.
By using this tool to “instill confidence” and “reduce surveillance” of the victim, according to the ruling of the Court of Cassation, it is impossible for the bank to prove the serious negligence of its client.
Do not submit the claim to your bank
Still at Tech&Co, Maude Hupin reminds that it is up to the bank to prove gross negligence on the part of the client if it refuses to reimburse him. And to do this, banks sometimes try to use the statements of their clients to turn against him, asking him to file a complaint and then sending him this same complaint.
While the jurisprudence is now clear: the bank must reimburse the victim if his phone number appears on the screen, banks “still very often try to dissuade victims,” laments Tech&Co’s lawyer. Forcing the latter to go to court to recover sums that can reach tens of thousands of euros.
“Unfortunately, the financial investment can be high, especially when your savings have just been stolen,” estimates Maude Hupin, who recalls, however, that in the event that the bank is convicted, the victim’s lawyer’s fees can also be reimbursed. .
Questioned by Tech&Co about this new jurisprudence, BNP Paribas believes that the reimbursement of its clients who are victims of scams by false advisors is carried out “on a case-by-case basis”, even in the case of identity theft.
For its part, the French Banking Federation explains that it has “no comment to make on a judicial decision, which refers to an individual situation dating back to 2019”, recalling that it has launched prevention campaigns against fraud by false banking advisors.
Source: BFM TV
