Bank not checking overseas recipient prior to transferring substantial amount

[beecee]

It's all my fault

[wales01man]

Re: Bank not checking overseas recipient prior to transferring substantial amount

You were happy to tell bank it was ok why do you think they should have done any checks? you should have done your own doubtful you have any redress sorry to say.

[MIKE770]

Re: Bank not checking overseas recipient prior to transferring substantial amount

strange when I years ago was offered an investment the bank manager investigated to say it is o.k. but advise that not the best to invest in save your monies = call it duty of care???

[beecee]

Re: Bank not checking overseas recipient prior to transferring substantial amount

At least your bank manager at the time investigated the investment.

[wales01man]

Re: Bank not checking overseas recipient prior to transferring substantial amount

How many UK to overseas transfers are made a day? Should banks check them all if yes what would the charge a couple of hundred quid or more

[CharlieP]

Re: Bank not checking overseas recipient prior to transferring substantial amount

I think your only recourse would be to persue the investment scammer abroad along with other victims. Was it some sort of property investment headed up by a developer?

[beecee]

Re: Bank not checking overseas recipient prior to transferring substantial amount

there is still that faint flickering light at the end of that tunnel at the moment in the form of a current police investigation where this is being persued...

[MIKE770]

Re: Bank not checking overseas recipient prior to transferring substantial amount

At least your bank manager at the time investigated the investment.

luckily the investment was account held by that branch

[des8]

Re: Bank not checking overseas recipient prior to transferring substantial amount

Banks owe a duty of care to their customers not to facilitate fraud.

However banks are expected to comply strictly with their customers payment orders (Bank of New South Wales v Laing [1954] AC 135)
If the payment order itself had been forged or fraudulent the bank may have been held liable, but your instructions were clear,unambiguous and confirned and certainly not forged or fraudulent.

For the bank to be liable in negligence it would be necessary to show the bank had reasonable cause to believe the instruction to make the payment was an attempt to misappropriate thefunds of the customer. In the case where the signatory is a private indvidual it is difficult to see how such a claim could be made.
Can you explain why you feel the bank would have had reasonable grounds to suspect the payee was fraudulent?
Do you expect he bank to check every payee to whom they are instructed to transfer funds by their customers?