Refunds in the bank must start without asking customers for a prior complaint
By law, it is not due and could turn out to be a double-edged sword because the lending institution could cling to some detail therein in order not to carry out the immediate planned reimbursement
3' min read
3' min read
Report to the carabinieri? There is time to make one. In the event of theft, loss, embezzlement, cloning or unauthorised use of payment instruments, the first thing to do is to block the account or card from functioning and ask the bank to reimburse the amount of the unauthorised and disallowed transactions by the customer. Then all that remains is to wait for the bank's response, which must be given within 15 days.
At the counter, they cannot subordinate taking charge of the file to the completion of burdensome operational fulfilments or - as often happens - to the request for additional documentation such as a copy of the complaint to the Authorities, which may be requested for the purposes of the investigation, but later. This was reiterated by the Bank of Italy in a communication sent on 17 June to the banking system, which continues to turn a deaf ear to this issue, which has now become a scourge.
In the first instance, in order not to reimburse, the bank would have to ascertain that the disallowed transaction was caused by the failure to comply with the obligations imposed on the user himself (e.g. custody of the payment instrument) as a result of his conduct characterised by wilful misconduct or gross negligence. Otherwise, the bank is obliged to promptly refund the amount of the unauthorised transaction, without requiring an immediate reporting of the account holder to the authorities.
Re-crediting of the sums must take place by the end of the business day following the day on which the notice of disallowance was received. This is without prejudice to the bank's right to prove, even at a later date, that the user has acted wilfully or with gross negligence, and in that case to obtain a refund of the refunded amount from the user. The bank may also not refund immediately, but only if it has a justified suspicion that the unauthorised transaction resulted from fraudulent activity by the customer.
The report, therefore, is not due and could turn out to be a double-edged sword because the bank could cling to some detail therein in order not to proceed with the immediate reimbursement.
