Court holds bank liable for failing to monitor customer’s accounts

Court holds bank liable for failing to monitor customer’s accounts

Sessions court orders Maybank to pay RM166,000, representing the losses suffered by account holder Chan Yan Li due to unauthorised transactions in 2021.

mahkamah
Judge Maimoonah Aid said there were clear signs of suspicious transactions in Chan Yan Li’s accounts that should have triggered further checks by Maybank.
KUALA LUMPUR:
The sessions court here today held that a local bank was liable for negligence in monitoring a customer’s accounts, resulting in RM166,000 in losses from unauthorised transactions.

Judge Maimoonah Aid awarded RM166,000 to Chan Yan Li after allowing her civil claim against Maybank. She also ordered the bank to pay RM50,000 in costs.

Chan filed the suit in 2022 after RM166,000 was transferred out of her loan account through a series of transactions between June and July 2021.

She has held two accounts with Maybank since 2000: a housing loan account and a savings account.

In 2021, RM166,000 was transferred from her loan account into her savings account. Chan said she did not receive any SMS alerts or push notifications for the transaction.

The funds were later transferred out of her account to unknown individuals in multiple transactions. The bank maintained that notifications were sent and the transactions were authorised.

Chan lodged a police report over the incident.

The court was also told that three individuals linked to mule accounts had pleaded guilty to offences involving the concealment of property and possession of stolen items.

In her judgment, Maimoonah noted contradictions between the telco records and the transaction reports submitted in court.

She said no SMS alerts were sent for certain transactions, some of which took place in the early hours of the morning.

“The plaintiff (Chan) was not an active user of the Maybank2U (app), as she only used it to pay credit cards or remit money to her father-in-law.

“The defendant’s (Maybank) report stated that from June 28 to July 2, 2021 money was transferred out of the plaintiff’s account,” she said.

Maimoonah also said the account’s sudden activity during that period clearly indicated suspicious transactions that should have triggered further checks.

The bank is partly liable if it “shuts its eyes to an obvious fact of dishonesty”, she said.

Stay current - Follow FMT on WhatsApp, Google news and Telegram

Subscribe to our newsletter and get news delivered to your mailbox.