The Supreme Court reassures the unfortunate victims of scams and deceptions: the bank pays if they steal money from me with an ATM. In fact, the bank has the burden of acting diligently by doing everything possible to avoid abusive withdrawals.
The responsibility will remain with us unfortunates only if on our part there has been serious fault in the custody of the ATM card. Gross negligence means negligence, a particularly serious distraction in keeping the ATM. This was not the case with the protagonists of the cause that we are telling you today. This is a very recent case. The ruling of the Court of Cassation which ended the affair was dated May 2020.
The bank pays if they steal money from me with the ATM
The two owners of the Bank account they knew they had a credit balance of around 23,000 euros. A hefty sum that, just two days later, was completely cleared by withdrawals from the counter ATM. Obviously these were unauthorized and therefore abusive withdrawals. The two unfortunates immediately alerted the credit institution, which blocked the ATM. At this point the two applicants filed an appeal against the institution itself to obtain the refund of the sum.
At first instance, the Court gives reason to the bank, stating that the institution is liable for abusive withdrawals only if made after the cardholder’s request for blocking the card. Before, however, the bank would not be responsible because there is no evidence that the cardholders have acted prudently and carefully to prevent the ATM card from being stolen or cloned. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, overturns the result.
What the Court of Cassation says
Take note of the following arguments because, in the unfortunate hypothesis that it happens to you too, you already know how to set up your defenses. In the meantime, it is the bank that must prove that that certain transaction is attributable to the customer. The Supreme Court has already stated this with a previous sentence of 2017.
This is because the bank has the technical tools that make it possible to verify the correct use of the secret codes provided to the customer and, therefore, to promptly detect any fraud. The Supreme Court concludes that the bank must provide proof of the traceability of the transaction to the customer. It is not the customer who has to prove precisely that he did not withdraw the money from the ATM. It definitely seems like a nice advantage in terms of testing for us unfortunate customers.
The cassation also cites the legal source of this obligation for the bank: it is Law 11 of 2010, art. 10 / 1st paragraph. Attention to the following passage of the Court of Cassation, because it contains a warning which we must always be inspired by.
Responsibility of the customer
The Court states that there may be a responsibility of the client if the client does not check the bank statements for a long time. This is because the customer is also required diligence and attention in the management of their money and the relationship with the bank. In the case in question, fortunately, the holders of the current account had reported the disappearance of the money two days after the incident. They evidently had a habit of checking their checking account often.
So here’s the advice we all need to remember: check your current account statement often. It is the first form of diligence on our part. A simple gesture that can protect us from so many troubles. In the end, the unfortunate protagonists of the sentence were given back 23 thousand euros by the bank. The institute certainly never expected to have to repay such an important sum!