Elderly scam victim’s string of payments should have aroused bank’s suspicions

Categories:
Fraud & scams,
Summary:
In 2021, Alice, an 84-year-old pensioner, received a Facebook message from a friend of a friend recommending an investment purportedly with an overseas grant scheme. Alice contacted the scheme and decided to invest with it. She began transferring money to Australia, at first small amounts at infrequent intervals, but later larger sums at more frequently intervals. One day, she made two international payments at the same branch and was served by the same teller. She made all the payments in person at branches in her area. Each time, she completed a form declaring she had carried out checks and was sure the transfer was not a scam.

On one occasion, the teller asked the reason for the payment, and Alice said “for family reasons” – the answer she had been told to give by the scheme advisor. The teller considered this explanation at odds with the pattern of transactions and called the fraud team. Following a conversation with a fraud investigator, Alice came to realise she had been scammed. She had lost $114,000.

Alice's daughter-in-law complained the bank should have become suspicious about the transactions much sooner. Had it done so, she said, it could have prevented or minimised Alice’s loss. The bank disagreed, saying Alice completed a form confirming her intentions and authorised the payments. There was nothing, it said, to alert it to the fact she had become caught up in a scam.
Published:
November 2024

Our investigation

Customers are responsible for the payments they authorise, but banks must be alert to indications of a scam, often referred to as a red flag. If a bank fails to detect or respond appropriately to a red flag, it may be liable for part or all of the customer's losses.

We reviewed the records of Alice's interactions with branch staff and agreed it was unusual for an elderly customer to be making international payments of ever-increasing size without any apparent reason. The fact the same teller had processed two payments for her on the same day ought to have aroused suspicions.

Outcome

The bank and Alice agreed to split the loss from after the date Alice made the two payments on the same day via the same teller. The bank paid Alice $49,000.

Print this page