Overview
After a case of fraud, the focus is almost always on the bank: Shouldn't they have stopped the payment? Does she have to reimburse the amount? The answer depends largely on whether you authorized the payment yourself or whether third parties accessed your account without your consent.
The law contains a clear basic rule for unauthorized payments: the bank must reimburse the amount in accordance with Section 675u of the German Civil Code (BGB). In accordance with Section 675v of the German Civil Code (BGB), you can counter that the customer has intentionally or grossly negligently violated his duty of care. However, she must justify this objection and prove it in the event of a dispute. If it did not require strong customer authentication, the objection is basically cut off.
In the case of payments that you released yourself after being deceived, the legal situation for those affected is significantly less favorable. Liability of the bank only comes into consideration in exceptional cases, for example in the event of a breach of warning and protection obligations. We will tell you openly which category your case falls into according to our initial assessment and which test areas are realistic.
Immediate steps
These steps make sense in most cases – regardless of whether you instruct us.
If you have not already done so, have your online banking and cards blocked – with your bank or via the German blocking hotline 116 116. Make a note of the time at which you reported the block.
Report unauthorised payments without undue delay and ask the bank in writing for a refund. If the bank refuses, ask for a comprehensible explanation.
Collect bank statements, notifications from the bank, messages from the perpetrators and all correspondence. A memorandum written soon after the events helps to present the sequence of events reliably later on.
Do not sign waivers, settlement offers or pre-formulated accounts of events without having them reviewed. Such declarations can affect your legal position.
File a report with the police and change your login details from a secure device. Banks regularly ask for the case reference number.
Unsure what to do first in your case?
Legal assessment
We examine whether the disputed payments were executed without your authorisation. If so, the bank must as a rule refund the amount and restore the account to the position it would have been in had the debit not occurred.
The bank is released from its duty to refund to the extent that the customer caused the loss through a grossly negligent breach of their duties – in particular those under Section 675l BGB. We examine whether the circumstances cited by the bank support this allegation and whether it can prove them.
If the bank does not require strong customer authentication, the customer is liable under Section 675v(4) BGB only in the case of fraudulent intent. In addition, the bank must prove that the payment was authenticated and properly recorded; the record alone is not necessarily sufficient evidence of authorisation.
As a rule, banks are not required to check the content of payment orders. Only exceptionally, where the suspicion of misuse must have been obvious on the basis of overwhelming indications, may a duty to warn or to query the payment come into consideration. This threshold is high.
If the bank recommended an investment to you, different standards apply: the duties to give advice suitable for the investor and the investment then take centre stage. We determine which area of review is relevant in your case.
Who may be liable
In the case of unauthorised payments, the statutory refund claim against your own payment service provider comes into consideration. In the case of payments you authorised yourself, liability is conceivable only in exceptional cases.
If the payment was made via a credit card or an intermediary payment service, the claim may lie against that provider. We clarify who your contracting party is in the specific payment chain.
Liability of the bank holding the recipient account comes into consideration only under strict conditions, as it has no contractual relationship with you. It is conceivable, for example, where specific and overwhelming indications of misuse of the account went unheeded.
In addition to bank liability, claims may be available against the account holder who received the money. The two routes are not mutually exclusive.
Whether and against whom claims actually exist depends on the individual case and can only be assessed after reviewing the documents.
Preserve evidence
Do not delete anything – not even out of anger or shame. Your account of events is enough for the initial enquiry; documents can be submitted later.
Our approach
Using the form, you describe to us in a few minutes what happened. You can submit documents later.
We review your details, classify the facts and examine against whom claims may be available.
You receive an honest assessment of prospects, risks and costs – and decide for yourself whether to instruct us.
We implement the agreed strategy: towards banks, payment service providers and other parties involved, and in court if necessary.
FAQ
General guidance – it does not replace advice on your individual case.
That depends on the individual case. In the case of unauthorised payments, there is in principle a refund claim, against which the bank may raise gross negligence. In the case of payments you authorised yourself, the hurdles are considerably higher. We cannot give a guarantee, but we can give an honest assessment.
This allegation is often the beginning of the dispute, not its end. Gross negligence requires a particularly serious breach of due care, which the bank must set out and prove. We examine whether the bank's reasoning stands up to legal scrutiny.
The bank must prove that the payment was authenticated, properly recorded and booked. If it wishes to rely on gross negligence, it must also present supporting evidence for that. How courts weigh the evidence presented depends on the individual case.
As a rule, the bank may and must execute authorised orders promptly without checking their content. A duty to warn comes into consideration only in exceptional cases where misuse must have been obvious. We examine whether this threshold has been reached on the basis of the specific circumstances.
The initial assessment of your enquiry is free of charge. We inform you transparently in advance about all further costs, so that you can decide at your leisure whether to instruct us with the further review.
Knowledge centre
Phishing
· Manfred Kühn
If the bank refuses to reimburse you after a case of fraud, it is usually citing gross negligence. What the term means, who has to prove it and which circumstances count.
Phishing
· Manfred Kühn
After a phishing attack, the question arises as to whether the bank has to refund the debited amount. The decisive factors are the authorization of the payment and the accusation of gross negligence.
Payments
· Manfred Kühn
Once a transfer has been made, it cannot be easily canceled. What avenues there are after fraud - from a callback to the recipient bank to claims against the account holder.
Case review
We will assess which claims may be available and which next steps may make sense.
Your details are treated in confidence. An enquiry does not yet establish a client relationship.
By telephone, by email or via the case review – in confidence and initially without obligation.