Dominique went to her local branch and withdrew $20,000 in cash. She spoke to the branch manager who asked her what the cash was for. Dominique replied as the scammer had coached her: she said it was a gift for her five grandchildren who were visiting that weekend. The manager suggested other options instead of cash, such as transferring the money to the grandchildren’s accounts, or giving a card with a voucher, but Dominique wanted the cash. 

Dominique gave the cash to the courier as instructed. Three days later, she discovered she had been scammed. The bank refused to reimburse her, saying it had no reason to suspect she was caught up in a scam and she was responsible for the withdrawal.

Our investigation

We found the bank had no grounds to suspect Dominique was being scammed. The fact she was withdrawing a large amount of cash was not in itself suspicious. The reason Dominique gave for needing the cash was plausible. Dominique acted normally and when the manager suggested alternatives, Dominique was adamant cash was the only possibility. Despite media reports about police impersonation scams, there was nothing about the withdrawal or Dominique’s explanation that should have alerted a reasonable member of the bank’s staff to the possibility that she was being scammed. Good banking practice requires banks to make inquiries about a transaction if they detect (or ought to have detected) warning signs of a scam. In the absence of such warning signs, however, banks are not obliged to question any transaction but rather must carry out customers’ instructions.

Banks should certainly take extra care when dealing with vulnerable customers, although age alone does not make a customer vulnerable. We were satisfied the bank followed its policy for large cash withdrawals in this case. 

Outcome

We did not uphold Dominique’s complaint.