We see a growing trend in legal claims from individuals who are victims of fraud or bad deals, particularly in the context of so-called “atypical” investments. These claims refer to a “general” duty of vigilance, which would hold banks liable for failing to detect any “abnormal” activity or transactions on the accounts they manage, which should have prompted them to act. What is surprising about these claims is that, unlike traditional payment frauds, they come from individuals who do not dispute being the originators of the payment orders given. The fraud, therefore, does not directly affect the payment order itself but rather the underlying contract (often involving the purchase or subscription of financial products), in which the jurisprudence traditionally holds that the bank, as a payment service provider, has no obligation to intervene.
If you wish to consult the full article, click on this link.
