Why banks must pay back fraud victims

THIS paper today reveals shameful evidence of how banks have sought to wriggle out of their duty to compensate loyal customers who fall victim to fraudsters.

In a leaked letter to the industry regulator, they plead it would be unfair to hold them financially liable in cases where they can claim to have acted ‘reasonably’.

So let the Mail spell out why they are indeed responsible for fraud losses.

For a start, it is they who have forced customers to face the dangers of banking online, through a mass programme of branch closures aimed at boosting profits (and the five biggest netted £9.3billion in the second quarter of this year alone).

Then there’s the fact that payments extorted from victims go straight into other accounts managed by the banks – many of which are set up in false names, without adequate checks.

That’s not to mention cases in which crooked bank staff have themselves sold customers’ details to fraudsters.

To cap it all, banks make shockingly little effort to trace such payments through their systems. Indeed, one gang was able to steal £113million from 750 victims before the leader was caught and jailed.

Meanwhile, disturbing figures from Which? reveal only one in 25 reported cases of cyber crime is solved.

Only when banks are held fully liable for victims’ losses will they have a proper incentive to prevent fraud in the first place. Until then, this £1million-a-day racket can only grow worse.