-
That's the thing, the neighbour of a friend of mrs_com was a victim recently of exactly the method I described (£30k although nothing to do with Glazer Delmar) and neither the bank that hosted the bad actors' account nor the solicitor could give a fuck. I only know as she got wind of what my job is and contacted me.
Until they can be shown to be negligent through not preventing it, the consumer gets fucked.
It's an interesting philosophical question - at what point does it become negligence to not deploy a means of stopping your clients from being defrauded?
Dammit-
It's one of the main reasons banks will implement DMARC. In the cases of fraud via email where people believed the email was from the bank, the yardstick that determined whether the bank was responsible and should compensate was "what would the average person be reasonably expected to believe?". If it was a good phish, the bank had to pay out. I don't believe solicitors have as strict a responsibility. Although I do believe they still have to protect their clients so it is only a matter of time before DMARC becomes a requirement.
-
It probably doesn't even need to be shown as being negligent - The regulator has leeway to impose massive fines on banks for just being a bit shit.
stevo_com
NotThamesWater
That's the thing, the neighbour of a friend of mrs_com was a victim recently of exactly the method I described (£30k although nothing to do with Glazer Delmar) and neither the bank that hosted the bad actors' account nor the solicitor could give a fuck. I only know as she got wind of what my job is and contacted me.
Until they can be shown to be negligent through not preventing it, the consumer gets fucked.