A Monabanq client won her legal case after being the victim of financial fraud. There online bank had not fulfilled its duty of vigilance.
A customer had filed a complaint against Monabanq (a subsidiary of Cofidis owned by Crédit Mutuel Alliance Fédérale) after being the victim of a financial scam. She had made three successive transfers, through her advisor, for a total of 120,000 euros, to bank accounts located abroad in 2019.
Despite the warning from financial authorities, the bank refused to return the funds. The Lille judicial court, in a judgment rendered on October 6, 2023, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering the bank to repair part of the financial damage. Back to this matter.
120,000 euros evaporated in a few weeks
In July and then in September, a client made three transfers (30,000 euros, 50,000 euros, then 40,000 euros) to accounts in Portugal and Spain to buy shares in SCPI (real estate investment company). Quite quickly, but too late, the lady becomes aware of a possible scam.
She then filed a complaint in January 2020, but it was dismissed in October of the same year. In response, she put Monabanq on notice to repair the loss of 120,000 euros in January. And this is where things get complicated.
Monabanq denies having violated its duty of advice and vigilance, which pushes the defrauded person to take legal action in 2021 to claim compensation. After the classic exchange between the parties, in December 2021, it made requests to the Lille judicial court, invoking non-compliance with the bank’s duty of vigilance. Last November, Monabanq attempted to revoke the closure order, but the attempt was contested by the plaintiff’s lawyer.
The duty of vigilance of banks: a liability proof of negligence
Here, Monabanq’s responsibility is linked to its duty of vigilance towards uninformed customers. The establishment stressed that its client had been negligent, and that she had agreed to invest heavily in an unknown company without having done prior research. Before the judge, Monabanq also mentioned previous transfers to the complainant’s account as proof that the transactions were not unusual.
But the client replies that it is the bank that should have been attentive, given her situation, the amount of unusual transfers and the use of foreign bank accounts. The court recognized that the bank had failed in its duty of vigilance by not verifying the financial capabilities and knowledge of the client regarding these high-risk investments.
The court finally ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered Monabanq to pay her half of the sums invested, i.e. 60,000 euros, under “ the loss of chance of not investing your capital “. Why only half, you may ask? Because in the event of loss of luck, compensation for the damage can, unfortunately for the victim, only be partial.
Source : Legalis
12