Click to return to BOL home page
Banker Store eCard Exchange Vendor Connect Career Connect Learning Connect Bankers Information Network
 

Support for BOL is provided by:

MAIN CONTENT 
Compliance

    Agency Road Maps

    Alphabet Soup

    Compliance Tools

    FACTA/FCRA

    OFAC

Lending

    FACTA/FCRA

    Lending Tools

    SCRA

Marketing

Operations

    Check 21

    Operations Tools

    SAR Resrch Guide

Security

    AML/BSA

    Bank Robbery

    Counterfeits

    ID Fraud/Phishing

    Security Tools

Technology/eBanking

    Info Security


SPECIAL AREAS 
BOL Archives

BOL Blogs

Briefing Archive

Calendar

Court Watch
Em@il Education

Examiner's Corner

Executive Briefing

Infovault

Launch Pad

Site Map

Site Orientation

Top Stories


~ ~ ~
SERVICES 
CrimeDex

Em@il Education

ID Verification

Record Retention


~ ~ ~
SHOP 

Banker Store

Bankers Info Ntwk
Vendor Connect

CONNECT 

Career Connect

Learning Connect

Vendor Connect

Guru Central

INTERACT 

Ask a Guru
Bankers Threads

Contact Us

Give Us Feedback


TOOLS 

60 Second Solutions

Alphabet Soup

Banker Tools

BOL Forms

FUN 

BOL Recipes

eCard Exchange

LEARN MORE 

About Advertising
About Our Sponsors
About Us

Print Friendly! Email This Article! Discuss NOW!


Customer Negligence and Reg E
by John Burnett, BOL Guru
Guru Bios

Question: How exactly is NEGLIGENCE defined with regard to Reg E and unauthorized withdrawals from an ATM machine? At what point can a Financial Institution deny credit? For example, customer uses a foreign ATM, then leaves the device in the ATM resulting in an unauthorized person withdrawing funds. The police will not investigate because they consider the customer negligent. Do we have to reimburse the customer?

Answer: Negligence is simply not a factor in determining customer liability for unauthorized EFTs under Regulation E. The Electronic Fund Transfer Act, implemented by Regulation E, is a consumer protection statute, not a law establishing equitable obligations.

Visa and MasterCard have "zero liability" policies for their signature debit products (when used on their networks), and these include exceptions for cases of customer negligence (such as taking too long to report an unauthorized transfer). However, neither of the card association's rules would apply to an ATM transaction in any event.

You have to look at the definition of unauthorized electronic funds transfer in section 205.2 of the regulation. You'll see that nowhere does the definition mention customer negligence as a factor.

The police obviously have to prioritize their cases. I suspect that something like the scenario you've depicted drops down near the bottom of their list. After all, what criminal act took place? Probably petty theft, if your state's statute even includes such an act in that category.

I suspect that the most the card issuing bank could hope for in such a case is the cooperation of the ATM owner in attempting to identify the individual that took advantage of the cardholder's lapse. That's a long shot at best.

In the meantime, get out the checkbook and reimburse your customer. You don't have any wiggle room here.

First published on BankersOnline.com 07/18/05



Privacy Policy    Disclaimer   Recommend This Site !   Contact Us


BankersOnline is a free service made possible by the generous support of our advertisers and sponsors. Advertisers and sponsors are not responsible for site content. Please help us keep BankersOnline FREE to all banking professionals. Support our advertisers and sponsors by clicking through to learn more about their products and services.