loopyloo
And I don't think the bank does have to refund it as it had given so many warnings.
Obviously, the bank in question either does not have to refund the entire amount, as they have only paid out a smaller amount, or else they are willing to make a test case of it.
In the circumstances, I do not think we can expect a bank should have to reimburse the full amount, as they had told the client that they suspected a scam more than once and asked if she really intended that the money should be transferred.
Presumably, the bank can prove that these enquires were made by them, and that the client insisted that the transfers should go through.
Online banking is still fairly new and it always takes time for the law to catch up whenever significant changes of this kind are made.
At one time, not so long ago, if you paid for an airline ticket or a holiday and the company went bust before your journey or holiday, that was that - you had lost your money. Today, if you have paid by Master card rather than Visa you are re-imbursed for air tickets, and there may even be a fund that re-imburses you in the case of a travel agency or package holiday or hotel failing.
Presumably, bankers will manage to protect themselves by law in the course of the next couple of years from customers who ignore their advice regarding transferring large sums of money to dubious firms or acquaintances.
Sadly, there is nothing new in lonely women, looking for a husband, being done out of their savings. Men too have been known to fall for a pretty girl or widow's hard-luck story.
In ancient Rome, merchants put up a sign on their stalls: caveat emptor - which being translated means "Let the buyer beware" .in other words check the article for faults before you hand over your money.
Like me, you probably rememember your grandmothers inspecting cloth very carefully before buying it, or turning a garment inside out to inspect the seams.


