Is the scam not a scam?
At a time when it is a bank operating, the public authorities also support it.
Do you know what a scam is? In the Cambridge English dictionary, the scam is called "an illegal scheme to bring in money, especially one that involves cheating people".
Do you see that a government official is legally protecting banks from fraudulent activities when banks assign all risks, obligations, and obligations to the consumer at the moment and not them?
We all do online banking. When we pay someone and put money into their records, we need to provide the fraud involved: Account name, BSB number, and account number. A notice has been issued to ensure that the fraud is correct, and the bank will not be at risk of any improper conduct by the consumer. Without this instruction, we all accept that the bank will invest in the name of the appropriate record; in any case, for what reason should they ask for the name of the record?
In the event that a client has made a mistake, one can agree that the bank should not be liable as instructed. In any case, what happens when a client should not be blamed at the moment that the internal framework of banking should be blamed? Who is responsible?
Let me give you an example of a new situation where a buyer receives a fraudulent email from his or her financial guide where he or she can move stocks. In it, the fraudster has changed the financial schemes. Everything, including the name of the exchange, continues as before. In extreme cases, the exchange of goods took place. The next day the finance lawyer cries out to him to reveal that the money was sent to an unacceptable record to another bank. His bank was immediately shocked by the fraudulent exchange, and eventually, 80% of the assets were returned. He caused a 20% shortage.
It is a situation where a client is an injured person who knew nothing about bank fraud. What the client did or did not do, did not affect the outcome of the case. The fraudster found that the banks did not match the names of the accounts and used the internal arrangement of assets between the banks. Is the bank responding to this misfortune? Does negligence not guarantee a customer?s benefit by not submitting legal security efforts? The bank considered the lack of their security framework, which was the reason for their reprimand. The bank denies any risk, and the matter is referred to the AFCA (Australian Financial Complaints Authority) for a purpose.
After a brief period of consultation, the AFCA concluded with the approval of the bank. It said the bank could not be legally responsible for linking the records and tracking where the money was going. As a result, we have a situation where banks cannot be legally expected to take responsibility for any internal exchange of assets between banks. If that happens to be the case, an investigation reveals, who? Are the rules intended to reassure consumers or banks?
The case marked the opening of the bank's security framework in which fraudsters, tax evaders, etc., had a court date. There is no guarantee for the buyer. Banks are protected by informing their clients of this opening. They are not officially required to place obstacles around the opening, so another traumatic client who is not as alert as the one above does not fall into it. They say we care about each other, but there is no obligation and no public authority to support their position.
Clearly, a government official provides specialized treatment to the financial business in respect of consumer insurance. The same drug does not make a difference in various areas such as clinical calling, where specialists are often considered to be responding to discharge without their control. How would you feel if an expert, with the support of a government official, warned you about your work, saying, "I will take each idea, and yet there is no obligation on any discarded swab"? Won't you treat customer support rules as a great joke?
So the investigation reveals that if the bank is not legally responsible for the internal exchange of assets between the banks, who? How is the consumer protected? Looks like no one wants to connect with this opening of the security framework because everyone, except the lucky customer, has a hand in investing in it.
1 like
Create and manage your profile
