Customer’s plausible response gave bank no reason to question withdrawal further

Categories:

Fraud & scams, Investment,

Summary:

In April 2025, Gemma saw a job advertisement online and, following the instructions of whom turned out to be a scammer, went into a branch and withdrew a total of $31,500 (telling the teller, when asked about the purpose of the cash withdrawal, that it was to buy a car). She deposited the money into the scammer’s cryptocurrency wallet via a crypto ATM. Gemma later discovered she had been scammed and complained to the bank that it should have detected the scam because of her anxious and unusual behaviour and asked it to reimburse her loss, which it refused to do, although it later offered $300 for delays in investigating her complaint.

Published:

March 2026

Our investigation

The question for us to determine was whether there was anything about the withdrawal that should have caused the bank to suspect it might have been part of a scam. A bank must follow a customer’s transaction instructions unless it detects (or should have detected) warning signs of a possible scam. If it detects such warning signs, it must make inquiries about the transaction and, if warranted, warn the customer about the possibility of a scam before processing the transaction.

Gemma said that, when asked about the purpose of the withdrawal, she told the bank she was buying a car. There was nothing about her response to suggest the possibility of a scam, and the bank was therefore not obliged to ask her any further questions.

We did, however, consider the bank's investigation of the scam to be deficient, and in response the bank increased its offer to $600.