Financial fraud, once defrauded you must also be careful with banks

The rampant growth of financial fraud is no longer a signal to sound the alarm bells; the numbers now show that it is an overt social scourge. Real criminal organisations are staging increasingly sophisticated frauds almost undisturbed, exploiting the gaps opened up by the digitalisation of financial services, which, in addition to offering multiple opportunities and benefits, has broadened the spectrum of scams in recent years. From those perpetrated over the phone, by e-mail, by text message, to those carried out with artificial intelligence or channelled through social media. It is a pervasive phenomenon, capable of sending the unfortunate family to the brink of ruin. Unfortunately, we have also had to tell stories like that of a widow who had her account cleaned out on the very day of her spouse's funeral. Fraudsters are ready to seize the moments of fragility of potential victims. But how is the phenomenon to be curbed?

It should start with a coordinated intervention between banks, institutions and supervisory authorities. Banks already invest significant sums to increase security and customer protection. According to Abi data, from 2020 to 2025 banks spent more than EUR 2 billion on cybersecurity. Their reputation is at stake. But when prevention fails and the customer falls victim to a scam, at that point the bank raises its defences to protect its own interests, to the detriment of customers, and tries in every way not to hold itself responsible for the losses incurred by the account holder through the scam.

Yet since the enactment of Legislative Decree No. 11/2010, the intermediary bears the burden of proving the client's gross negligence, on whom, however, an excess of EUR 150 remains payable. The customer is only obliged to the timely simple disavowal of the disputed payment transactions. Generally speaking, the framework agreement that the customer signs at the beginning of his relationship with the bank, requires the free written form and not - as is often imposed in practice by credit institutions - the immediate prior denunciation, the content of which may highlight certain defaults on the part of the customer himself, which the bank will then use to try to shift blame.

However, when the customer formally communicates that he disowns a transaction, the intermediary must re-credit the amount by the end of the business day following receipt of the communication, and only then reclaim it from the customer at a later point in time, after proving the customer's intent or gross negligence. In that case, he may obtain a refund of the amount previously refunded.

Two years ago, the Bank of Italy had to reiterate to the banks that they must comply with the regulatory framework. Inspections had highlighted and found unfounded refusals and deficiencies in the execution of reimbursements, in relation to the time required to process disallowances often burdened by formalities - first and foremost the complaint - borne by customers. The Bank of Italy has therefore called on banks to adopt a specific internal policy for the management of disallowances in line with the regulations, to launch appropriate initiatives to raise the awareness of staff at the counter, and to provide customers with ample information on the timeframes and procedures to be followed to obtain reimbursement. A moral suasion that has not yet had the desired effects. The Bank of Italy's aim was to make bank users aware of their rights and to invite them to report banks that do not follow the instructions laid down in the regulations. But without decisive intervention by the Authority, the phenomenon of fraud is destined to remain the main source of diatribes between banks and customers.