29 July 2015

US court dismisses bank's counter-suit against hacked customer

29 August 2012  |  7980 views  |  1 keyboard 3

A US court has rejected BancorpSouth's counter-suit against a former commercial customer it sought to hold liable for losses related to an ACH and wire fraud case.

In 2010, Choice Escrow and Land Title fell victim to hackers who obtained its online banking details using malware and wired more than $400,000 to a bank in Cyprus.

Later that year, Choice sued BancorpSouth for failing to provide "commercially reasonable security", demanding damages and recovery of losses related to the attack.

Earlier this year, the bank hit back with a counter-suit, arguing that Choice should be held responsible for losses, damages and legal costs.

According to BankInfoSecurity, a US district court in Missouri has dismissed the counter-claim despite magistrate judge John Maughmer conceding it was a "very close call".

The case was one of several in the US over the last two years that have seen banks and business customers argue over who is responsible for online account hacks.

Last year a Michigan court found in favour of Experi-Metal in its $560,000 cyber-heist suit against Comerica Bank, concluding that the provider should have done a better job of picking up the fraudulent transactions.

This contrasted with an earlier decision in Maine, where the presiding magistrate ruled that Ocean Bank was not responsible for the loss of around $345,000 from a business customer account following a similar cyber-attack.

Comments: (1)

Ketharaman Swaminathan - GTM360 Marketing Solutions - Pune | 31 August, 2012, 13:18

"This contrasted with an earlier decision in Maine, where the presiding magistrate ruled that Ocean Bank was not responsible for the loss of around $345,000 from a business customer account following a similar cyber-attack."

This is no longer valid. As on 3 July 2012, the United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, reversed the decision of the lower court. So, Ocean Bank has now been held responsible. For the bank, this is another example of "unintended consequences", as I'd pointed out here.

Be the first to give this comment the thumbs up 0 thumb ups! (Log in to thumb up)
Comment on this story (membership required)
Log in to receive notifications when someone posts a comment

Finextra news in your inbox

For Finextra's free daily newsletter, breaking news flashes and weekly jobs board, sign up now.

Related blogs

Create a blog about this story (membership required)

Related stories

20 June, 2012
19 July, 2011
17 June, 2011
08 June, 2011
Your browser is unable to support Flash files.


Top topics

Most viewed Most shared
Visa confirms Visa Europe acquisition talk...
9121 views comments | 16 tweets | 22 linkedin
Square reportedly files for IPO
6364 views comments | 16 tweets | 13 linkedin
Banks lag manufacturers and telcos in race...
6237 views comments | 28 tweets | 15 linkedin
Wells Fargo creates innovation group
5834 views comments | 15 tweets | 9 linkedin
BNP Paribas explores the blockchain; SocGe...
5674 views comments | 12 tweets | 15 linkedin

Featured job

to 80K base, 160K OTE
London, UK

Find your next job