Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

DashRift t1_j1le7qb wrote

5

Agile-Bed7687 t1_j1mv2g0 wrote

Yeah it is, where would the money come from? They would have to recover it because they aren’t going to comp you their own money. In the Case of a fraudulent charge the bank can recover from visa MasterCard etc through their insurance programs but a scam is not the same as fraud. When you give away access you give away your rights.

0

Noidremained t1_j1nmigl wrote

>they aren’t going to comp you their own money.

actually they will. I guess they believe that their reputation is more important than a small amount of money

2

Agile-Bed7687 t1_j1nosjq wrote

Actually after working for 2 investment firms and 2 multinational banks and 1 credit union they won’t. Next time work in the industry before you speak

−1

Duality26 t1_j1nxz3i wrote

In the US, EFTs initiated as a result of an account takeover are explicitly covered under Regulation E. The CFPB has published guidance and made it very clear these types of transactions are covered.

"4. Does an EFT initiated by a fraudster using stolen credentials meet the Regulation E definition of an unauthorized EFT?

Yes. As discussed in Electronic Fund Transfers Error Resolution: Unauthorized EFT Question 1, Regulation E defines an unauthorized EFT as a transfer from a consumer’s account initiated by a person other than the consumer without actual authority to initiate the transfer and from which the consumer receives no benefit. 12 CFR 1005.2(m)."

OP is in Austrailia so this is moot; however, if your experience in the financial industry is in the states, you are confidently incorrect.

However, other scams not involving an account takeover may not fall under the purview of Reg E, such as buying a gift card for the scammer; or, p2p transaction, which the CFPB will likely push consumer friendly guidance for in the next few years.

Source: I'm a certified regulatory compliance manager with 15 years banking experience.

2