Judge Sides with Bank in Lawsuit by Cyber Heist Victim



+ Add a Comment



Regardless of internet account burglary in excess of $300,000, a Maine judge has decided that the financial institution that was aware of the theft is not accountable for the money. BankInfoSecurity reports the judge told the plaintiff that they needed to have done a more satisfactory job of keeping their own account information secure.



Well then I guess ultimately Microsoft is responsible, after all they are the ones that have kept a producing/ and selling a operating system that is far too easy to break. And what if the computer had anti-virus installed and updated? 

Sorry, but I feel the bank is responsible here, and I can't really see how anybody could say otherwise. Would you say the same thing if somebody wiped out your savings, because some hacker found a back door through the latest Flash player? After all we put our money in banks for the security, and many times we have no choice in the matter, as direct deposit is forced upon us. The bank should have had safeguards in place to see suspious activity, and by federal law any transactions over $3000 should have threw up red flags anyway.

But ultimately this doesn't suprise me a judge would side with a bank. As many politicians are bankers, and even some judges are bankers, and as the TARP showed us they could careless about the blue collar workers in this country!



My take: The bank's security and monitoring should be investigated, if found lacking they should SHARE responsibility (to a certain %, definitely not more than 50) with the client. If their security and monitoring are found to be adequate, then it's 100% the client's fault.

It's a hard lesson to learn, but maybe they will learn that you don't do your general surfing / facebookery on the same machine that you do your financials on in a business.



1 he had all that in one bank account? Stupid mistake one. 2 he didnt check his account for how many days? No bank i deal with would let me transfer that much in a short time. Not keeping an eye on an account like that ...stupid mistake 2. 3. Not having virus and malware protection and half a mill in the bank....biggest stupid mistake of all time. A fool and his money soon part...the only one that should lose out is the fool. The judge was right. But if I were him Id find a better bank. Most banks have things in place to protect people against their own foolishness...yeah that bank sucks but it doesnt make them liable in this situation.



1) Having all that money in one bank is not stupid. I bet you there are tons of millionares that put all of their money into a single bank. The bank should have done more.

2) Even if he checked it every single day (which is what some people do) it would have been a day late and a dollar short in the transfer.

3) Who says you can't get malware even if you have anti-virus protection? You can still get a virus/worm/malware even with a top of the line security system.

4) Assuming certain facts, now that's a mistake.

Not sure what i feel about the judge's opinion, but i sure know that the person who's responsbile for that mistake is going to regret it.



So first we give rich types like bankers a nearly negative tax rate, then stack the legal deck in their favor. Now they can say anything they don't want to pay isn't their responsibility and, chances are, the judge will rule in their favor. What happens when nearly all the wealth in the US is held by a tiny minority, and everyone else has nothing? I used to think the idea of the US becoming like a third world county was too absurd to ever take seriously. Now I'm having to thoroughly rethink those ideas . . .



"What happens when nearly all the wealth in the US is held by a tiny minority,"

I'm sorry to say this, but that's already happened.

10% of the population owns 85% of the wealth (in the US).



While I don't think the theft sounds like it's the banks fault, they certainly don't sound like a very good company to bank with.


Keith E. Whisman

This pretty much tells banks they can steal your money and not have to own up to it. They aren't responsible for what happens to your money once they have it. That is screwed up. So this is kinda like a day care provider not being responsible for your children while they are in their care. So what this judge is saying is that the bank can't be held responsible for account activity. They can drain your account and say we don't know what happened but we aren't responsible for your money and because of this precident they will win. This sucks. That judge had to have taken a pay off of some sort. 



Contact your bank and brokerages if you have them and tell them you want to disallow wire transfers. If they won't comply do your banking elsewhere.



This is one seriously hosed up decision.  I hope it gets over-turned, or we are all farked.



I'd side with the bank too. Sure, they *could* have had more measures to have detected this earlier, but ultimately, it's not their fault that it happened.  The bank could still pay in terms of lost customers, as people that know about this might leave the bank for others with better safeguard mechanisms, but as far as where the blame lies, it's clearly in the customer's side in this case.



Sounds like they are both at fault here. but sadly, the judge is responsible for determining "a winner" not actually making a good decision.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.