We save money in Banks to protect our wealth?

Clients, not banks, liable for losses in phishing scams, court rules

Poor German citizens....

The German Federal Court of Justice in the southwestern city of Karlsruhe said on Tuesday that clients, and not banks, are responsible for money lost in online phishing scams.

The country’s highest civil court ruled that in the case of a German retiree who lost €5,000 ($6,608) in a bank transfer fraudulently sent to Greece, the man was negligent, and was therefore liable to pay the amount lost. In 2010, Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), received over 5,000 reports of phishing, a huge rise over the previous year.

Apparently all the bank needs to send your money to some other account is an electronic notice.... they are not responsible for sending your money to an unauthorized recipient if the recipient can contrive an electronic certification that the bank honors.

"The plaintiff argued that the bank had a duty to protect its customers from the abuse of these codes," The Local reported. "But the federal court upheld previous judgements by the district and state courts, agreeing with the bank’s argument that the customer should bear responsibility for falling for the con."

So the victim is now "guilty" of not being competent enough.... There is something wrong with this equation I think....

Imagine if you will that someone creates a forged check from your account.... the bank was traditionally responsible for ensuring the validity of the transaction... and so it was with credit cards as well.... but the German court has now ruled that it's not their responsibility to protect your wealth from the actions of a criminal ... it's yours..... so being the victim of crime makes you doubly at fault.... unless this is a new scheme to sell "insurance" or charge a fee to cover them doing what used to be their job.

Can you imagine where this road ends? .... "What money? You no longer have an account here." And where do you go? Not to court. It's your problem.

I dunno, maybe I'm just old fashioned... it seems like a step backward for the consumer.... or another step up for the Corporate Banking Cartel Overlords... because you know Banks tend to follow each others' gravy train drippings.. and it's just a matter of time before we see them trying this here in the US too.

Can you imagine where this road ends? .... "What money? You no longer have an account here." And where do you go? Not to court. It's your problem.

WOW! Basically this is Germany, and citizens there are going to have to find a way to overturn this, and demand their leaders do so, and we have to ensure this Highway Robbery doesnt occur here. It could even be the banks in cohoots with corporate theives or any corrupt group, the mafia police chief say, or your criminal mayor.

I hope that citizen is NOT STANDING FOR THIS AND IS MAKING A HUGE FIRE/NOISE/STINK THAT WILL MAKE HIS COUNTRY DUCK AND DODGE.

I would ensure that court knew they werre going to lose their jobs and every chance of their retirement funds by the time I was through with them.

Literally if some illegal wanna be controllers set themselves up in your court houses, then its time to make it very clear, get loud, get bullhorns. Tell them they are finished. Phone in and meet with you representatives and have meetins with the mayor and all levels of government, also, you would contact the media, nonstop, and radiio and every form.

You would make pamplets and have citizens up in arms with PITCHFORKS UNTIL JUSTICE WAS DONE AND THOSE PEOPLE MAY EVEN NEED TO BE ARRESTED TO APPEASE THE CROWDS!

reply to post by Maxmars


first europe then usa, it is why I refuse to put more then the monthly bill amount in the bank. keep the cash safely near you or the bankster will...ya you know

Originally posted by Unity_99

WOW! Basically this is Germany, and citizens there are going to have to find a way to overturn this, and demand their leaders do so, and we have to ensure this Highway Robbery doesnt occur here. It could even be the banks in cohoots with corporate theives or any corrupt group, the mafia police chief say, or your criminal mayor.

I hope that citizen is NOT STANDING FOR THIS AND IS MAKING A HUGE FIRE/NOISE/STINK THAT WILL MAKE HIS COUNTRY DUCK AND DODGE.

I would ensure that court knew they werre going to lose their jobs and every chance of their retirement funds by the time I was through with them.

edit on 25-4-2012 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)

With 13,261 posts exactly when will you have time to do perform this act of civil disobedience?

reply to post by Maxmars

Help me understand this. A man was conned, and gave away the contents of his bank account. Now he wants the bank to give him free money to replace what he gave away. The bank should do this because ... ?

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


Perhaps a more suitable tabloidization of the idea would be, "A bank was conned of a clients money, and now it wants the victim of the con to be solely responsible.... i.e. banks are unaccountable for the wealth you deposit there.

Both are equally off-balance.

Part of the relationship of trust is the idea that the bank protects your wealth (for which they are handsomely rewarded - all things considered.)

This man wasn't forced at gunpoint to withdraw his money.... a means of transaction with the bank was undertaken... they are declaring themselves as "out of the picture" in this affair... yet if not to protect your money; why give it to them? Why is the bank also not a victim of this crime? They facilitated the crime themselves. Their processes are wanting; their due diligence was ineffectual, if not non existent.

Frankly, I am not saying the man should be immune from the experience... he did get conned. But this is a crime; and the matter of the wealth was one of joint ownership since the bank held his funds in a de facto contract of trust.

Now the government has decided (by what reasoning I'm sure I can imagine) that this case will be publicized because of the stupidity of the victim. It makes an easy sell for the idea that "Hell no! It's his own damn fault!"

Is that really the society we want to live in? What if it were someone you actually cared about? Change anything? I bet it would.

I'm no fan of banks. Or, more specifically, the mechanic by which money is created. Not a fan at all. Let me just say that.

But, in this case, I'm not sure what can be done. If someone was holding something for me under a contract that it be released on my order, I'd be (and have been) pretty annoyed when that part of the contract is even slightly impeded. Like, for example, receiving phoncalls from my bank after a large(ish) transaction. This has happened to me after I'd believed the transaction complete, only for the phonecall to tell me it's on hold until I satisfy further requirements. I know that those requirements are in the contract I signed but it's still annoying, however much I accept it.

What would need to be done, is to demonstrate that a bank's procedures insufficiently screen a transaction; that they were not suspicious of things which are later reasonably adjudged as being so. My bank will call me about non-routine transactions. If this guy's transaction was out of character, then perhaps his bank should have been more suspicious. However, the high street is a place of choice (illusion perhaps). And I know that I can get a bank account (as I used to have) which will not hassle me with calls about unusual transactions. I don't know what type of account this guy had or preferred.