Quebec consumers who are victims of debit card fraud are less well protected than those who have their credit cards stolen. Two entrepreneurs held responsible by their bank for having each been stolen $45,000 through sophisticated fraud learned this the hard way. Minister Simon Jolin-Barrette suggests that a new bill will change the situation.
Posted at 1:25 a.m.
Updated at 5:00 a.m.
Jessie Lassonde, owner of Librairie Gourmande, at the Jean-Talon market, still wonders how she could have been more vigilant. The fake RBC representative who called her three weeks ago, misleadingly showing the financial institution’s number on her display, quickly made her lower her guard. The thief already knew the detailed balance of her accounts. She also had access to her victim’s most recent transactions when she set her scheme in motion.
“She said to me, ‘To cancel suspicious transactions that appear on the account, I will send you codes by text.’ She was messing around with things and putting me on hold while playing the same little music you hear when you call RBC. I could not have suspected that she was a fraudster,” says the shopkeeper.
By revealing these six-digit codes to him, Mme Lassonde unknowingly gave him the keys to empty his business bank account and his personal accounts. The scam allowed the thieves to transfer more than $40,000 to each other.
No way to get the money back. Her bank, she says, accuses her of having given security codes and refuses any reimbursement.
Yes, I gave codes. It’s my mistake and I understand it, but the bank also has its share of responsibility. The fraudster was already in my account when the call started.
Jessie Lassonde, owner of a bookstore in Montreal, victim of fake representative fraud
Barbara Jacques, who operates a Halloween-themed business at Place Rosemère, describes an identical modus operandi. The scammer who called her, also pretending to be an RBC fraud detection employee, knew she had paid a HydroSolution bill earlier in the day.
The thief duped her three times in the same way, managing to redirect her employees’ paychecks to another account. Nearly $45,000 disappeared in a series of transfers, which RBC refuses to reimburse Mme Jacques.
PHOTO JOSIE DESMARAIS, THE PRESS
Barbara Jacques, a merchant in Rosemère, was stolen $45,000 by a fraudster who posed as an RBC representative.
The RBC refuses to collaborate with the police. The only option left to me is to file a complaint with the bank’s ombudsman or to hire a lawyer. I can’t explain this situation.
Barbara Jacques, merchant in Rosemère, victim of false representative fraud
Without commenting directly on these two cases, RBC says it “will never ask a customer to provide their PIN, wire transfer reference number or unique access code.”
“It is essential to know how to spot the signs of attempted fraud and take steps to protect your personal and financial information,” writes spokesperson Jessica Assaf in an email sent in response to our questions.
Why are amounts stolen from a credit card refunded?
In the case of Mme Lassonde, the fraudsters also stole more than $3,000 from her credit cards, but these transactions were immediately canceled by the financial institution, she assures.
This situation is not surprising, say three experts consulted by The Press. Article 123 of the Consumer Protection Act indicates in black and white that Credit card holders who are victims of fraud can only be held responsible for $50 of the total loss.
“But the law does not provide for this obligation for debit cards,” summarizes Nicolas Vermeys, deputy director of the Cyberjustice Laboratory.
As a general rule, if you use Visa or Mastercard, you are better protected because there are guarantees that come with the brand.
Simon Marchand, fraud expert from the cybersecurity firm GeoComply
In cases of fraud by debit card or by electronic transfer from one account to another, it is the banking contracts of the institutions which act as the law, explains lawyer Alexandre Plourde, fraud specialist at Option consommateurs.
The advocacy group believes that banks unfairly place the burden of these frauds on consumers by concluding that they “authorized the transaction” by communicating a secret code.
New bill
This double standard, however, risks being eliminated by Bill 72, currently under study in the National Assembly. A series of amendments to the Consumer Protection Act plan to limit consumer liability to $50 in the event of a fraudulent unauthorized transaction.
Obtaining the codes by deception is not an authorized transaction.
Simon Jolin-Barrette, Minister of Justice, during the detailed study of the bill
If “convincing indications” of fraud are detected, “the person will be reimbursed,” added the minister, in response to questions asked by the opposition.
“The demonstration of a simple fault on the part of the consumer is not sufficient” to refuse compensation under the bill, clarified the minister’s office in response to our requests for clarification. “The institution must establish gross negligence, that is to say carelessness, imprudence or gross negligence. »
Sébastien Plourde, of Option consommateurs, sees in these statements by the minister an intention “which could greatly help victims of bank fraud”.
UK tightens rules
In the United Kingdom, a new no-fault regulatory framework, which came into force on October 7, requires financial institutions to reimburse victims of bank fraud within five days, up to £85,000 ( $152,000). “It is the bank which has the burden of proof and must demonstrate what happened, and the simple negligence of the customer is no longer sufficient as an argument,” summarizes Simon Marchand, fraud expert at the banking company. cybersecurity GeoComply. “In response, British banks have invested massively in their protection methods,” notably adding biometric identification mechanisms, he says. Reporting fraud to authorities has also become mandatory for UK banks.
