Mr Emery concluded that the term should describe ‘a foreseeable risk of loss’ and in Claire’s case he explained that she was not acting ‘voluntarily’ as she was ‘socially engineered’ and therefore did not understand not that there was any risk associated with what she was doing so was not “grossly negligent”.
The deal was successful, and Santander later repaid Claire the stolen money.
Santander confirmed that since the incident, it has changed its approach to scams and adhered to the Contingent Reimbursement Model which sets consumer protection standards for Authorized Push Payment (APP) scams that banks must follow.
Santander was an early participant in the code and is now actively working on fraud protection for its customers.
Claire said: “It’s been so long and the day I got that letter was, it was elation, and it felt so good to be back on track.”
“I had a bottle of champagne in the fridge, ready and waiting, and the day the money was returned to my bank account, I opened it and had a very good drink, well it was over!”
Denial of responsibility! newsnaveen.online is an automatic aggregator around the global media. All the content are available free on Internet. We have just arranged it in one platform for educational purpose only. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials on our website, please contact us by email – firstname.lastname@example.org. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.