The unfortunate Anne was defrauded of 830,000 euros by a scammer who posed as none other than Brad Pitt. A scam that became world famous following a report in Seven to Eight on TF1. But after being fooled and made fun of by unsympathetic viewers, the time seems to be for revenge and justice. The victim has expressed his intention to counterattack, according to Marwan, an ethical hacker who has already helped the fifty-year-old find the trail of her grazer.
If he is arrested, the grazer who posed as Brad Pitt risks very big. Fraud against a vulnerable person is punishable by seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of 750,000 euros. But Marwan announces that Anne has a second target in mind: her bank. According to the hacker, Anne has filed a lawsuit against her bank, and “is hopeful of recovering her 830,000 euros, or at least part of the sum”. But can the bank really be held responsible?
Target the grazer first rather than the bank
“We must not confuse the cases,” first reminds Alice Cointet, lawyer at the Paris bar and specialist in banking and consumer credit law. In the event of fraudulent misappropriation of means of payment, if the crook has for example taken control of the bank card or hacked the codes to make transfers, “the bank has an obligation to reimburse”.
But “in the case that interests us, the scammer did not misappropriate the victim’s means of payment, it was she who voluntarily handed over her funds,” continues the lawyer. In this case, “the normal procedure is to plead breach of trust, an offense under the Penal Code, which is settled in the criminal court. The person must file a complaint, then the prosecutor will probably refer the matter to the investigating judge. The latter will then launch an investigation which will last several months. The victim can request compensation for their damage but there is an obligation to find the scammer, otherwise the case is closed without further action. »
An obligation of vigilance not respected by the bank?
In the event of dismissal, the bank could indeed fall into the sights of justice. “The victim has a possibility of action on the part of the bank and can request compensation for his civil damage from the judicial court, on the basis of the banker’s duty of vigilance. »
The bank has an obligation to monitor suspicious and unusual transactions from its customers, and to contact them in the event of a suspicious transfer. “If it does not respect this obligation of vigilance, it may be ordered to reimburse the lost amount,” indicates Caroline Laverdet, lawyer at the Paris bar and specialist in banking law.
In its obligation to combat money laundering and the financing of terrorism, the bank can also carry out random checks on transfers to foreign accounts and intervene in the event of suspicious sums or origin of the transfer. Two points that are increasingly condemnable by the courts, indicates Michel Guillaud, president of France Conso Banque which watches over consumers: “With the explosion of fraud in recent years, the courts are becoming more and more severe with the bank and increasingly assert these two requirements of vigilance and control. »
The bank’s possible counter-arguments
But be careful not to declare victory too quickly. The bank’s conviction is far from automatic, because the latter can defend itself. “It is possible that the banker actually called Anne to warn her of suspicious amounts. It is enough to prove that the calls took place,” recalls Caroline Laverdet. Because the bank does not have complete power over its client, but mainly a duty to warn. “In any case, we cannot prevent a person from making transfers with their own money, just warn them and alert them,” argues Alice Cointet.
Another potential line of defense for the bank, “the transfers must be really unusual,” recalls Caroline Laverdet. So of course, at first glance, 830,000 euros spent in a few months is cause for alarm. But Anne was formerly married to a millionaire, so the banker was probably used to seeing very large sums circulating in his accounts.
Still, the affair could shake things up, given its extreme media coverage. Michel Guiraud concludes: “Banks are becoming less and less cautious, while fraud is exploding. Since 2018, it is no longer obligatory for banks to check the consistency between the name of a beneficiary and their IBAN. Immediate transfers have become democratized, without more demanding control, as has the addition of new beneficiaries. Our association also requests double identification of the beneficiary, and a limit on the amount of a transfer, for example 2,500 euros, without going through the bank advisor. Wishful thinking for now.
