Fine has given his decisions in the dispute about the loss of money in the summer of 2024.
The Finnish bank’s customer lost € 86,000 to cheaters. Inka Soveri
The Finnish Bank refused to compensate his customer’s loss of EUR 86,000. The scam victim lost his money to think of the scam site that resembles the pages of Omakanta.
The bank claimed that the liability for the bank transfer is not the responsibility of the bank in accordance with the Payment Services Act and the applicable terms and conditions of the contract.
Insurance and financial advice Fine Bank Board did not recommend compensation either. The customer had demanded that the bank refunded the lost amount or even a reasonable part of it.
This is how the victim lost his money
The victim had thought he was on a genuine Kanta.fi site and logged there with his bank ID. However, it was a fake site built by cheaters, and the bank IDs ended up in the criminals. The account was transferred to a Spanish bank account of EUR 86,000.
The bank closed the user’s account immediately after the transfer was made and contacted its customer. However, the bank failed to stop the fee and the money could not be refunded.
More reinforcements
Not only did the victim entered his badges to the fake site, but then confirmed the login’s login and bank transfer with the bank identification application.
The announcement sent to the identification application states that the user is asked to confirm the $ 86,000 bank transfer to a person called Aleksi in the beginning of Es-Es. In addition, a large bank transfer required additional confirmation, which was asked to ensure that the information is correct and the user really wants to confirm the transfer.
All reinforcements took place within the two -minute time window.
The bank’s customer is obliged to take care of their payment instruments and related security IDs. According to the bank, the customer neglects their obligations in a gross way.
The settlement of the bank board According to the victim, the victim has given the bank transfer his consent within the meaning of the Payment Services Act, albeit in obvious inadvertion.
– The panel considers that the bank is not obliged to compensate the damage caused solely on the grounds that the bank has not prevented a bank transfer, it says.
Fine’s solution previously reported Ilta-Sanomat.