Crypto

Banks have a duty to monitor accounts for unusual activity and conduct proportionate checks when suspicious payments are identified, even though customers authorize payments.

Account holders are responsible for properly authorised transactions under the Payment Service Regulations (2017), and banks are not liable for payments to accounts in the customer's own name even if motivated by scam.

A firm should follow customer payment instructions when authorized with legitimate security credentials, but may intervene if transactions appear out of character or high-risk, provided the customer gives truthful information to enable prop

Banks cannot be held responsible for scam losses where the consumer has not provided sufficient evidence linking transactions to the scam and has provided inconsistent testimony to the bank.

A financial services firm must implement proportionate monitoring and intervention systems to prevent fraud, but is not liable for losses where the customer provides misleading answers that prevent effective warnings from resonating.

A bank is not liable for authorised payments to legitimate cryptocurrency providers unless the transaction was so unusual or out of character that it should have triggered additional fraud checks.

A Cifas fraud marker for misuse of facility requires clear, relevant and rigorous evidence that a customer was aware funds were from an illegitimate source, not merely an unwitting money mule.

A payment is authorised where the evidence shows the account holder was aware of and consented to the transaction, even if they were subsequently victims of a scam.

A firm is only required to reimburse a consumer if wrongdoing by the firm caused the loss; proportionate fraud interventions do not guarantee prevention of loss if the consumer was not truthful and continued with the scam despite warnings.

Banks must monitor accounts for unusual transaction patterns and fraud risks, but the starting position is that liability for authorised payments rests with the payer even when duped, unless the bank failed to act on information that should

A payment service provider is not required to reimburse losses from fraud when the disputed activity was not sufficiently unusual or suspicious to alert it to a risk of financial harm at the time of processing.

A bank has a duty to make payments as instructed but may make fraud checks in some circumstances; however, it is not liable if the customer insists on proceeding despite appropriate warnings.

A bank cannot be held liable for payments claimed to be lost to scam without sufficient evidence substantiating that the payments were actually lost to that scam.