What avenues of recovery are there for an issuing bank where their customer is killed abroad, and fraudulent transactions are made by the perpetrator after the killing and subsequent theft? The killing occurred 26 days ago, and the transactions occurred the day of the killing and the following day.To make matters worse, the card used was a MasterCard debit card, and the perpetrator somehow obtained access to the PIN.
We have received debit card disputes from multiple customers that believed they were making arrangements to purchase a pet from someone that posted an ad on Facebook. In each case, the customer selected a pet from a photo they received from the "seller" and then sent money as instructed via PayPal, Zelle, Western Union, etc. All transactions were initiated with debit card information. After payment was sent, each customer realized/decided that they are most likely the victim of a scam, and no pet will be received.
Are these transactions fully covered by Reg E? I'm struggling to come to a conclusion, because at least one customer is unable to provide documentation that indicates when the pet is expected to be received. In all cases, the customers willingly provided their card information and sent money to someone they do not know.
My bank has received a counterfeit check from a depositing bank. Our customer called the day the check cleared his account and we returned the check to the Bank of First Deposit on the same day as reported.
Who will take the loss on this item, the BOFD or my bank? And should we treat this as a fraud/ disputed item ?
If you see large dollar transfers from a person's business account (an LLC) to a person's personal account, and then you see large AMEX payments on both accounts, would you consider that co-mingling funds?
An item was presented for cash at the bank. The handwriting and signature matched our customer's previous checks and signature card. However, the customer is now stating that they did not process this item and it is a forgery. What due diligence does the bank have to follow since we believe this is NOT a forgery but our customer trying to gain funds. The customer has completed and signed an affidavit of forgery. Does the bank have an obligation to give credit back to the customer without an investigation or police report filed? At what point is our customer liable?
A longtime customer came into the Bank and presented the teller with a check. The teller asked the customer about the check and she stated that she had received the check in the mail as part of her winning the Publisher's Clearing House. The letter instructed her to cash the check and submit a portion of the funds back to them while they finalized the issuance of the "large" winning check. This sounded strange to the teller who called a supervisor and through research found the check to be fraudulent. The supervisor retained the fraudulent check refusing to return it to the customer (fearing she would take it to another bank).
Does the bank have the right to retain the fraudulent check or should it have been returned to the customer, or should the check be destroyed and documented that such action was taken?
In regards to fraudulent debit card charges, the bank I work at in California requires our customers to try to get the money back (even though it's fraud) before they will file the claim. From working at other banks, it was always my understanding that when it's a fraudulent charge, we file the claim and the customers do not have to try to get any money back. Are we in violation by requiring them to contact the stores/vendors to try to get money back? We haven't come across any situations where the vendor can even bring up the charge since it's not in our customer's name and we don't have any order number or anything.
What is the bank's responsibility in regards to customers with diminished capacity? I have an elderly customer with dementia who makes frequent trips to the bank (often multiple times a day) and is in an advanced state of confusion. He often requests to take all of the money from his sizable checking account. While he has every right to his money, we are concerned that he is incapable of managing his finances on his own and is an easy target for criminals. He is walking around with a significant amount of cash in his wallet. While it does not appear that he has been abused financially, he does not have family who is willing to help him out. It is obvious that he no longer needs to be in control of his finances. As his bank, what are our options as far as keeping both the customer and his assets safe?
Bank A issues a cashier's check for $25,000 payable to Smith Jones Construction. Bank B accepts the check for photo deposit into Mr. Jones' personal, private account indorsed with only his single signature. The cashier's check is never endorsed in the name of the payee company. Bank A then accepts the check from Bank B. Mr. Jones quickly withdraws the money from Bank B and misappropriates the funds. The business itself never gets paid. If it matters, this is in Ohio.
What banking errors were made here and by whom? The business is asking for recourse.
Are there circumstances that would prohibit an account be restricted opposed to placing a hold on the account? For example, a customer cashes a counterfeit check against their checking account and inevitably the check returns, resulting in overdrawing their account. What is the best method to protect the bank and the customer from any further losses: a hold on their account for the amount of the counterfeit check, or restricting the account? Are there any NACHA regulations, such as return reasons, that prohibit
restricting an account?