We have a client that is disputing ATM w/ds that took place from the end of Sept. to the first of November. He reported the unauthorized w/ds to the bank on 11/04/13. We have since discovered that all the w/ds were done by the client's son who our client states had access to his debit card and PIN. We have pictures of the person that completed the ATM w/ds and have shown them to our client. He has admitted that his son completed the w/ds. We are looking at a total of $11,743.00 in ATM w/ds that we will be taking a loss for. Since we know the client's son completed the w/ds, do we have to give the client credit for the transactions?

How did the son have access to the debit card and PIN? Did the father give him that information or did the son take that information without the father's permission? That makes a difference.

If the father gave the son the PIN and access to the card, then the transactions are considered "authorized" for purposes of Reg E unless the father notified the bank that the son had that access and was no longer authorized. I'm assuming no such notice was provided as you probably would have hot-carded that card and issued an new one with a new PIN if so. So if the father says he gave the son the PIN and access to the card, transactions are "authorized" and no credit required for the transactions.

If the father did not give he son that information and access, then the transactions may legitimately be "unauthorized". Be sure the father knows that if he wants to pursue the claim that the transactions are unauthorized, you will be giving him credit, but then you step into his shoes as the victim suffering the loss and as such, you will pursue prosecution to the fullest extent of the law. This will often change the claim from "unauthorized" to "I'll handle this on my own with the son." Also, in this scenario, it is important to find out when the father first learned of the loss or theft of his device, of the unauthorized activity, and compare that to when he notified you. If he took too long to notify you he could still be liable for more than $50 of the unauthorized activity.

Aren't you already past your 45 days and should have closed the case by now- unless this was a new account or the ATMs were out of the country.

deed has a valid point as from the description it sounds like your investigation period expired and this claim should have been resolved by now.

To add some clarification to Jim's comments, if dad gave the card and PIN to son and son took more than was allotted that is an abuse between the family and the claim should be denied. If however, dad had at one time allowed son to use the card but this time son took it from dad without approval and just remembered the PIN, that is theft and the claim could be valid.