Bank vs. Customer Claims Rejected

Court Dismisses Bank's Counterclaims in $440K Suit

By , August 28, 2012.
Bank vs. Customer Claims Rejected

Labeling it "a very close call," a U.S. district court has rejected a Mississippi bank's efforts to have a former commercial customer held liable for losses, damages and legal costs in an ACH and wire fraud case. And one legal expert suggests the case could set a precedent for other similar fraud cases.

See Also: Fighting Financial Fraud: Mitigation for Malware, Phishing & DDoS Attacks

Five months ago, BancorpSouth filed a countersuit against Choice Escrow and Land Title LLC, claiming that company, not the bank, was responsible for a fraudulent wire transfer that in 2010 drained more than $400,000 from Choice's commercial account. The $14.3 billion bank argued that Missouri-based Choice was responsible for covering the bank's financial losses and legal expenses related to the case (see Bank Sues Customer Over ACH/Wire Fraud).

But a U.S. district court in Missouri last week dismissed BancorpSouth's counterclaim against Choice, which filed its original suit against the bank in November 2010. So it now appears the two parties are edging closer to trial.

Choice Escrow's lawsuit against the bank seeks damages and recovery of losses linked to the attack, claiming the bank should have declined the transfer. The funds were routed to Cyprus, and Choice Escrow had no history of wiring funds overseas.

Choice executives would not comment about the ruling, and BancorpSouth executives could not be reached.

But IT security and privacy attorney David Navetta, the co-founder of the Information Law Group who's an expert on cases of ACH and wire fraud, says the court's interpretation of Article 4A of the Uniform Commercial Code (a.ka., the Funds Transfers Act) is the highlight of the ruling. And he says it could set a precedent for other bank fraud cases.

"Long story short, the court ruled that UCC 4A pre-empted the indemnification clauses being used by the bank in their counterclaim," he says.

The ruling suggests, Navetta adds, that a bank's contract with a customer that contradicts the spirit of the UCC could be nullified by the courts when legal disputes over fraud arise.

BancorpSouth's Counterclaim Arguments

In its counterclaim, which the court dismissed, BancorpSouth argued that:

  • The wire transfer it approved was the "direct and proximate result of the negligence of Choice, acting by and through its agents and employees."
  • Choice's contract with the bank included a funds transfer agreement, a business services agreement and an agreement to use the bank's InView System Automated Information Reporting Services. But Choice opted out of InView's dual-control option, making it liable for the losses it suffered. "Choice is contractually obligated to indemnify and hold harmless BancorpSouth Bank from any losses and damages sustained by Choice arising from its own conduct or negligence or the actions or omissions of its own agents or employees."
  • The contract Choice signed obliges it to indemnify the bank for attorneys' fees, court costs and other expenses related to its suit.

The Court's Findings

In his four-page ruling, Magistrate Judge John Maughmer says he based his decision about contractual obligations between banks and commercial customers on his interpretation of the UCC. And he acknowledges the waters are murky. "The court, having read the briefing of the parties, finds this to be a very close call," he says.

Nevertheless, Maughmer finds that the UCC does not provide blanket protections for banking institutions, in spite of indemnity noted in the contract.

"As enacted in Missouri and other jurisdictions, the Funds Transfers Act (UCC 4A) was not intended to preempt or displace all causes of action between a bank and its customers engaging in money transfers," Maughmer writes. "The uniformity and certainty sought by the statute for these transactions could not possibly exist if parties could opt to sue by way of pre-Code remedies where the statute has specifically defined the duties, rights and liabilities of the parties."

Other Cases

Inherent in the magistrate judge's findings is the question "What is reasonable?" regardless of whether that reasonableness comes from the bank or the commercial customer. What's contained within the contract and what is deemed "commercially reasonable" often are at odds, Navetta says.

Follow Tracy Kitten on Twitter: @FraudBlogger

  • Print
  • Tweet Like LinkedIn share
Get permission to license our content for reuse in a myriad of ways.
ARTICLE Lenovo Website Hijacked

The hacking group Lizard Squad has claimed credit for hijacking the website of Lenovo.com and...

Latest Tweets and Mentions

ARTICLE Lenovo Website Hijacked

The hacking group Lizard Squad has claimed credit for hijacking the website of Lenovo.com and...

The ISMG Network