[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_image src=”https:\/\/gregorydamy.niceavocats.fr\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/07\/office-620822_1280-2.jpg” alt=”Avocat Nice Accident” title_text=”office-620822_1280-2″ _builder_version=”4.24.2″ _module_preset=”default” global_colors_info=”{}”][\/et_pb_image][et_pb_text _builder_version=”4.24.2″ _module_preset=”default” hover_enabled=”0″ global_colors_info=”{}” sticky_enabled=”0″]<\/p>\n
LAWYER IN NICE \u2013 Banking Law<\/strong><\/p>\n October 23, 2024, Court of Cassation – Appeal No. 23-16.267 – Commercial, Financial, and Economic Chamber – Section Formation – Published in the Bulletin<\/p>\n “No gross negligence within the meaning of Article L. 133-19 of the Monetary and Financial Code can be attributed to the account holder who, contacted by phone by someone posing as a bank employee with a matching caller ID, uses at the caller’s request a personalized security device to delete and then re-register transfer beneficiaries to prevent malicious operations.”<\/p>\n This decision by the Court of Cassation confirms the need to protect victims of fraud by impersonated bank advisors.<\/p>\n In this case, a BNP client was contacted by someone posing as their bank advisor. Worse still, the caller ID displayed the advisor’s number. During this call, the scammer persuaded the victim to validate their security information (digital key). This allowed the impersonator to add new transfer beneficiaries and initiate numerous transactions.<\/p>\n With \u20ac54,500 gone, the victim alerted the bank to these fraudulent transactions, having had no involvement in initiating them. However, the bank refused any reimbursement or compensation.<\/p>\n Not giving up, the victim took the bank to court, and the bank continued its resistance up to the Court of Cassation. The ruling came down on October 27, 2024: To justify the non-reimbursement of losses due to such fraud, a bank must prove the client\u2019s gross negligence. This implies that the burden of proof has now definitively shifted in favor of scam victims.<\/p>\n Coupled with the fact that simply using a digital key does not imply negligence, victims now have several tools to better defend themselves. All is not lost, and bank fraud victims are encouraged to take action, even if banks initially refuse reimbursement.<\/p>\n To assist you in building your defense, the DAMY law firm is at your disposal. [\/et_pb_text][\/et_pb_column][\/et_pb_row][\/et_pb_section]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" LAWYER IN NICE \u2013 Banking Law UPDATE IN FAVOR OF BANK FRAUD VICTIMS, OBTAINING COMPENSATION October 23, 2024, Court of Cassation – Appeal No. 23-16.267 – Commercial, Financial, and Economic Chamber – Section Formation – Published in the Bulletin “No gross negligence within the meaning of Article L. 133-19 of the Monetary and Financial Code […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"on","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-987508859","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n
UPDATE IN FAVOR OF BANK FRAUD VICTIMS, OBTAINING COMPENSATION<\/strong><\/h1>\n
Mr. Gr\u00e9gory DAMY also holds a banking law specialization certificate and is ready to support you, both in out-of-court settlements and in litigation.<\/p>\n