Two recent court rulings highlight banks' liability in fraud cases where victims unknowingly authorized transfers, emphasizing the duty of vigilance over mere authorization.
Fraudsters impersonate bank advisors
Fraudsters are impersonating bank advisors, often using phone number spoofing to trick victims into believing they are speaking with a legitimate representative. These fraudsters claim that the victims' accounts have been compromised and urge them to take urgent actions to secure their funds.Victims follow instructions under pressure
Victims, placed under pressure and anxiety, often follow the instructions given by the fraudsters. This can involve transferring money, adding new beneficiaries, or validating payments through their banking apps, often without realizing they are being scammed.Banks argue operations were authorized
When fraud is discovered, banks often argue that the operations were authorized by the client, using strong authentication. They claim this means they are not responsible for reimbursing the lost funds, which complicates the legal debate around bank liability.Courts hold banks responsible despite authorization
Two court decisions from October 2, 2026, show that banks can still be held responsible even if the operations were technically authorized. The courts found that the banks failed to detect apparent anomalies in the transactions, which should have triggered an alert.Case details from Albertville
In Albertville, a Boursorama customer was tricked into transferring 10,950 euros from her savings to her current account, adding beneficiaries, and making multiple transfers. She later requested reimbursement after recovering part of the funds, but the bank refused, claiming the operations were authorized.Paris case involves rapid payments
In Paris, a company called SEL Consulting was scammed through a series of rapid card payments and transfers totaling over 105,000 euros. The court found that the unusual frequency and pattern of the transactions should have raised red flags for the bank Qonto.Legal framework on unauthorized operations
French law distinguishes between authorized and unauthorized operations. Unauthorized operations typically require the payment service provider to reimburse the client, but the courts in these cases ruled the operations were authorized, complicating the legal argument for reimbursement.Courts look beyond authorization
Despite the operations being authorized, the courts emphasized that the banks had a duty of vigilance. They found that the unusual nature of the transactions, such as large sums and new beneficiaries, should have prompted the banks to intervene or alert the clients.Albertville court highlights anomalies
The Albertville court noted the unusual nature of the customer's transactions, including the rapid movement of funds, the addition of new beneficiaries, and the near-emptying of her account. These factors were seen as clear signs that the bank should have detected and acted on.Paris court emphasizes transaction patterns
In Paris, the court found that the 33 card payments made in under two hours to Ria Money Transfer were highly unusual. The repetition of amounts, the frequency of transactions, and the appearance of new beneficiaries were seen as clear anomalies that Qonto should have recognized.
