Business

Supreme Court forces banks to respond to unauthorized charges

Author: Enrique Pons Franco

We’ve all heard of cases like this: debit card of banking institutions suffered losses charges they deny, when hackers manage to bypass security systems and make purchases, often over the Internet.Given this, we also know bank In most cases, they were absolved of all responsibility; authorities had a hard time finding those responsible for the theft of depositors’ funds, and ultimately, the victims of these incidents didn’t end up getting justice from anyone…until now.

On August 4 last year, state supreme court published a legal standard that will bank when users complain to them unconfirmed charges in their bank account because in addition they have to perform Refund For the amount stolen, they must also Pay interest It is calculated from the time when the user sends the corresponding notification to the institution.

find out: Based on true events: Judge authorizes prisoner to possess sex toys

It all started with a Account holder Promoted to A in September 2018 business oral test in a court region of state Queretaro be opposed to banking institutionrequiring adoption in 2016 debit Affected people.

In November of the same year, the Federal Court ruled in favor of the affected parties, condemning the bank for canceling charges on debit cards and returning the said amounts to users, canceling charges, commissions and legal liabilities. Interest and default interest arising from challenge fees.But in addition, the judge ordered the bank Pay default interest In accordance with the provisions of Section 83, Section 85, Section 2 and Section 362 of the Act, the annual interest rate is 6% commercial code.

Obviously, bank He was unwilling to let his opponent be proven right, so he proposed a direct protection testheard by the University Circuit Court of the same state, affirmed the judgment of the first instance.

But let’s go back to square one.Affected people said that when withdrawing cash from the bank ATM, he realized that his bank account balance had decreased when he printed an operational report and produced a corresponding report the day after the discovery, and subsequently filed a corresponding commercial claim due to the bank’s refusal to reimburse the amount. money.

you might be interested: Based on true events: 10 lawyer stories you should see in 2024

As often happens in these cases, the bank presented various arguments and evidence to the judge in an effort to absolve itself of liability. Apparently, he said that the user had consented to the action because his electronic signature was used (pin), therefore funds should not be returned to those affected.

What is interesting here is that the bank was unable to prove that the banking operations at issue were sufficiently reliable and secure to deem the user to have expressed his genuine consent (aside from the use of his password), especially since he provided “Audit strip” of ATM The withdrawal was partly in Spanish and partly in English, and no corresponding translation was provided to the judge.

Furthermore, it is important to emphasize that the judge noted that while the bank argued that in the “audit note” it was fully observable that cash withdrawals were made using the cards and confidential numbers of the affected persons, merely showing a document with technology that would be incomprehensible to the average person Documentation of details is not sufficient to prove that the operation inserted therein was approved by the use of a debit card and the entry of a confidential number.

Furthermore, the judge stated that although the audit strip showed items such as date, folio, account, card ID, location, etc., the fact was that the information contained in these items did not allow us to determine that the operation at issue was authorized with the plaintiff’s confidential password . Accordingly, the banking institution is obligated to have records that verify the authorization or key imposed on the claimed charge so that the cardholder’s or user’s authorization or consent to process that amount can be determined in accordance with the regulations. Safety principles that must be adhered to for the benefit of the client.

Also read: Judiciary’s crackdown on outsourcing companies: historic fines exceed 1 million 600,000 pesos

Finally, I must tell you that although this matter started in 2018, another court in another state of the Republic upheld a standard contrary to the one I explained to you before regarding the payment of interest, which resulted in state supreme court Decide which of these two criteria should prevail.Starting next Monday, the court issued a precedent that will force judges across Mexico to comply interest payment In all sentence issued under similar circumstances.

Waiting to see how the banks react to this judicial resolution, we’ll see you next week.In the meantime, I’ll be waiting for you at X @enrique_pons If you are interested in obtaining a copy of the ruling, please write to me.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *