23 April 2017
visit http://events.sap.com/gb/fsi-forum-2017/en/home

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

29 August 2012  |  8402 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
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This is no longer valid.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)

Finextra news in your inbox

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

Related stories

Bank settles with hacked customer over ACH fraud

Bank settles with hacked customer over ACH fraud

20 June 2012  |  13393 views  |  0 comments
Another US bank sued by hacked customer

Another US bank sued by hacked customer

19 July 2011  |  12187 views  |  0 comments
US judge backs bank against customer who sued over hack

US judge backs bank against customer who sued over hack

08 June 2011  |  7964 views  |  3 comments

Related blogs

Create a blog about this story (membership required)
visit dh.comVisit capgemini.com

Top topics

Most viewed Most shared
BBVA runs live funds transfers over RippleBBVA runs live funds transfers over Ripple
9076 views comments | 27 tweets | 16 linkedin
hands typing furiouslyDoes the Buck Stop with GameStop?
8422 views 0 | 3 tweets | 14 linkedin
Western Union and MoneyGram unveil Facebook Messenger bots; Mastercard and Amex pile inWestern Union and MoneyGram unveil Faceboo...
8181 views comments | 16 tweets | 17 linkedin
Alipay and WeChat near $3 trillion payments milestoneAlipay and WeChat near $3 trillion payment...
7843 views comments | 35 tweets | 37 linkedin
Dutch banks back all-in-one mobile payments tech from INGDutch banks back all-in-one mobile payment...
6767 views comments | 17 tweets | 19 linkedin

Featured job

to 120K base, £300K ote, stock options
London, UK

Find your next job