Reg E and Police Reports

Posted By: M&M

Reg E and Police Reports - 06/07/04 05:09 PM

Is it reasonable per Reg E to require a customer to file a police report to receive credit for unauthorized transactions via a debit card? I was told that if our Fraud group suspected a customer was trying to fool them or if they thought family was involved, it's ok to require a police report. I don't buy it-that could be a big burden on a customer. Anyone care to share their thougths or opinions?
Posted By: Andy_Z

Re: Reg E and Police Reports - 06/08/04 03:16 PM

The Reg. says what they have to do to make a claim. And while you can expect a reasonable amount of cooperation in your investigation, you cannot require a PD report as a condition of paying a claim. It is that simple.
Posted By: Elwood P. Dowd

Re: Reg E and Police Reports - 06/08/04 03:45 PM

Andy is correct. Banks that attempt to require police reports in these circumstances are bluffing. If the consumer calls your bluff, fold.
Posted By: Andy_Z

Re: Reg E and Police Reports - 06/08/04 03:59 PM

And if the examiners catch it, the fold may be big as they ask you to at least revisit all claims since your last exam.
Posted By: Elwood P. Dowd

Re: Reg E and Police Reports - 06/08/04 04:03 PM

Agreed.
Posted By: M&M

Re: Reg E and Police Reports - 06/10/04 03:13 PM

Thank you for your insight into this. I'd hoped to get John Burnett to bite on this as well... John??
Posted By: John Burnett

Re: Reg E and Police Reports - 06/10/04 05:33 PM

CHOMP!
As tempting as it might be to try to enforce a requirement for a police report, Ken and Andy have really said it all here. You cannot make a police report a prerequisite for your investigation or provisional credit. The existence of such a report or its lack can only be one of the several pieces of information you must weigh in determining whether the consumer is entitled to reimbursement.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Reg E and Police Reports - 07/08/05 01:29 AM

If it is believed that the customer is trying to fool the bank, should a SAR be filed?
Posted By: Andy_Z

Re: Reg E and Police Reports - 07/08/05 11:27 AM

I'd be inclined to deny the claim and move on. My experience has not been that these rose to the level of a SAR. The dollars are generally much smaller.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Reg E and Police Reports - 07/08/05 01:34 PM

According to the customer, the specific issue arose when a customer's ATM card and VISA card were both lost in a briefcase along with other personal information, including including the slips of paper the bank generated PINs were sent to her on. The accounts were 'drained' over a four day period. No police report was filed and the transactions were done on ATMs with no camera. The total amount claimed was about $6000.
Posted By: Andy_Z

Re: Reg E and Police Reports - 07/08/05 02:29 PM

ATM and VISA? Was the latter a credit card? Initially you indicated that there was suspicion. What is above seems plausible. You may have a valid claim. Although if this was just an ATM and debit card out of a deposit account, I'd refer you to a similar thread this week where one observation was immediately made that your daily limit may be high for you to get burned this way. Four days, $6,000, is a lot of $ in a short time. If part of this was a credit card and ATM, that is more understandable.

And I don't know that a SAR here would be of any use since this is a legal claim being made under Reg E, possibly Z. Otherwise you'd need to look at some filing a false claim statute. I know there is one for financials, but I haven't seen one for claims such as this.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Reg E - 08/03/05 08:52 PM

Joint Account - separating. She purchases furniture - converted into an electronic transaction for $4,000. He shows up 20 days later and signs an affidavit that he did not initiate the transfer. Bank sends the transaction back to originating bank. He closes accounts. Domestic dispute with the bank in the middle. What to do? Can she or the retailer make the bank pay the electronic transfer with proof that she initiated it.
Posted By: rlcarey

Re: Reg E - 08/03/05 08:57 PM

Most likely the bank is on the hook and the bank is going to have to sue the husband if he doesn't return the money.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Reg E - 08/15/05 02:10 PM

So what are the typical circumstances that these claims are refused?

Pardon me for being a bit naive/cynical here (and I am new to the banking sector), but what's to stop rampant abuse of this customer-centric rule? Seems you could open multiple accounts at different banks, drain them, file a claim and be on your merry way to the next bank to continue the scam? What am I missing?
Posted By: Elwood P. Dowd

Re: Reg E - 08/15/05 02:55 PM

Quote:

What am I missing?




Nothing, some people make a nice income taking advantage of Regulation E's consumer protection provisions. For the banks, it's a cost of doing business that gets passed on to other customers. Ain't Congress great!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Reg E - 09/18/05 04:38 PM

Is there anyway to cross check with other banks to see if a customer has abused Reg E by filing multiple Reg E claims with other banks? Is any database or information repository available that shows Reg E claims filed by customer?
Posted By: John Burnett

Re: Reg E - 09/18/05 05:32 PM

Not to my knowledge. Putting a customer's name in such a database might even violate the law. However, you can be certain that some of these folks will show up in a ChexSystems or similar check.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Reg E - 09/19/05 04:47 PM

I beg to differ regarding anyone other than the customer being responsible for this "loss."

Since the account was jointly held, both owners would be required to attest that they did not authorize nor did they benefit from the transaction.

If I had any knowledge of the situation between the owners, I might not provisionally recredit until I have some type of affidavit from both owners.
Posted By: Andy_Z

Re: Reg E - 09/19/05 10:12 PM

You might be able to require an acknowledgment, but requiring an affidavit may be going too far as it isn't required to file a claim in the first place.

As to sharing a list of names, Privacy would be an issue and "blacklisting" someone because they used their legal rights under a law could get sticky as well. While similar to bankruptcy, this could be a trickier procedure. It is just easiest to "not go there" I believe.