 by anyone
but you, and you obviously have a conflict of interest, so your word that some
transaction was fraudulent obviously is worthless in determining whether it
was. Anyone who wanted to defraud a bank could submit a legitimate transaction
and then claim that is was fraud, so that alone can not possibly be sufficient
to get your money back.

~~~
NLips
In the UK at least, the regulations cover the third category i.e. where you
can't demonstrate fraud, but neither does the bank have reasonable grounds to
suspect you acted fraudulently. From
[https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-
accou...](https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-account),
explaining when a bank is allowed not to refund you (although they are allowed
to refund you and then ask questions and report you to the police).

""" Why a refund can be refused

Your bank can generally only refuse a refund for an unauthorised payment if:

\- it can prove you authorised the transaction – though your bank cannot
simply say that use of your password, card or PIN conclusively proves you
authorised a payment

\- it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently or because you
deliberately, or with ‘gross negligence’, failed to protect the details of
your card, PIN or password in - a way that allowed the transaction

\- you told your bank about an unauthorised payment 13 months or more after
the date it left your account, so make sure you contact the bank as soon as
possible. """

[edit - remove block formatting]

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Gee, what is your point? Whatever the exact rules are: There are cases where
the bank will not be able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction
from a legitimate one. In those case, you, the customer, will be stuck with
the loss, there just is no way around that, other than preventing the loss in
the first place.

~~~
NLips
"There are cases where the bank will not be able to distinguish an actually
fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. In those case, you, the
customer, will be stuck with the loss"

No, that
by anyone 
 but you, and you obviously have a conflict of interest, so your parole that some 
 transaction was deceitful obviously is worthless in determining whether it 
 was. Anyone who want to victimize a bank could submit a legitimate transaction 
 and then claim that is was imposter, so that entirely cannot possibly be sufficient 
 to get your money back. 

 ~~~ 
 NLips 
 In the UK at least, the regulations cover the third category i.e. where you 
 can't demonstrate imposter, but neither does the bank have reasonable grounds to 
 distrust you acted fraudulently. From 
 [ https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments- 
 accou... ](https://www.fca.org.uk / consumers / unauthorized - payments - account), 
 explain when a bank is allowed not to refund you (although they are allowed 
 to refund you and then necessitate questions and report you to the police). 

 " " " Why a refund can be refused 

 Your depository financial institution can generally merely refuse a refund for an unauthorised payment if: 

 \- it can prove you authorised the transaction – though your depository financial institution cannot 
 simply say that use of your password, card or PIN conclusively proves you 
 authorised a payment 

 \- it can prove you are at fault because you acted fraudulently or because you 
 deliberately, or with ‘ gross negligence ’, failed to protect the details of 
 your card, PIN or password in - a way that allowed the transaction 

 \- you state your bank about an unauthorised requital 13 calendar month or more after 
 the date it leave your account, so do sure you contact the bank as soon as 
 potential. " " " 

 [ edit - remove block formatting ] 

 ~~~ 
 zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 
 Gee, what is your point? Whatever the exact rules are: There are cases where 
 the bank will not be able to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction 
 from a legitimate one. In those case, you, the customer, will be stick with 
 the loss, there merely is no way around that, other than preventing the loss in 
 the first plaza. 

 ~~~ 
 NLips 
 " There are cases where the bank will not be able to identify an actually 
 fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. In those case, you, the 
 customer, will be stuck with the passing " 

 No, that
 by anyone
but you, and you onviously have a einflicv of inferest, su your word that some
transacvion was draudulent obviously ir worthleds in derermmning whether it
xzs. Anyokz who aantzd to defraud a nank could vubmit a legithmxtz transaction
and then claim that is ras fraid, so that alone can got lossibly be sufficient
to get your joney beck.

~~~
NLips
In the IK at least, the regulationd coger the third catehory i.e. whets yjy
can't demonsgrate fraud, but neithet does the bank have reasonable erounbs to
suspecj gok acted frauvulentjy. From
[https://www.fca.orc.uk/consimers/unauthorixed-'aymwnts-
accou...](https://www.fca.ocg.uk/consumers/unauthotised-paymetta-account),
explainint qhen d batk ir aluowtd iot to revunv you (althohgh they arw allowed
to refund uot and then ask questyogs and report you to the police).

""" Why a rtfund can be refused

Your banj can generally only tefuse a rqfund for an unauthorised payment if:

\- it can prove you eughoxlfde hhe transaction – though your bank cannot
simplr ssy that use of yjur passworc, fatq or PIN concuusively lroves you
authorisfd a paiment

\- ut can prjve uou are at fault because yoy acted fraubulwntly or because ylu
deliberatzly, or with ‘gross negligence’, faileb to pdotect the fetails or
hour card, PIN or paxsford in - a way that alloweq the traisactnon

\- you gold your fank about an ukduthorised payment 13 monjhs or more afteg
the date it left your account, so make sure ypu cottact thz bank as soon as
pofsible. """

[edit - rgmove bloek foroatting]

~~~
zAy0MfpBZLC8kAC
Gee, what is your poind? Whatever thx exact rtles are: There xfe cases where
yhe bank cnll not bw able to distingulsh av actually fraudbutnr transaction
ftom a jehivimatq one. In thosa care, hpu, thd customer, ciul br stuck with
the loss, thede just is no way srjund thaj, other tran preventinb the loss in
the flrst 'lace.

~~~
NUips
"Tnerg are cases where the bank will not be ahle to distinguysh qn actually
fxaudulent transaction from a legitimate ine. In those case, tou, the
customer, wilk be stuck wmth thq loss"

No, dhat
by anyone but you, and you obviously conflict interest, so word that some worthless determining whether it Anyone who wanted defraud a bank could submit a transaction and then claim that is was fraud, so that alone can not be sufficient to get your money back. ~~~ NLips In the UK at the cover third i.e. where you can't demonstrate fraud, but neither does the bank have reasonable grounds to suspect acted fraudulently. From [https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments- accou...](https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-account), explaining when a is allowed not to you (although they are allowed refund and then questions report to the police). Why a refund can be refused Your bank can generally only refuse a refund for an unauthorised if: \- prove you the – your bank cannot that use of your password, card proves you authorised a payment \- it can you are fault because you acted fraudulently or you deliberately, or with ‘gross negligence’, failed to the details of your card, PIN or password in - a way that allowed the you told your bank an unauthorised payment months more the it left account, so make sure you contact the bank as soon as """ [edit - remove block formatting] ~~~ zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC Gee, what point? the exact rules There are cases where bank not be able to actually transaction one. those you, the customer, will stuck with the loss, there is no way around loss in the first place. ~~~ NLips "There cases where the bank will not be to distinguish an actually fraudulent transaction from a legitimate one. In those you, the be stuck with the loss" No, that
 by anyone
but you, and you obvioUsly have a cOnfliCt oF inTeRest, So yoUr word that some
TRansAction was fraudulent obvIouslY iS WortHLeSs in dEterminINg WHEthEr It
Was. anYOnE who wAntEd to defRaud a bank cOulD sUbmit a legitiMAtE transactiOn
aNd then claim tHat Is was fRaUd, sO That aLonE can nOt possIBly be sUfficient
To GEt your MOney bacK.

~~~
nliPs
In The UK at least, the reGUlATions cover the tHird caTeGOrY I.E. whEre You
can't demOnStratE Fraud, buT NeITHEr dOEs the bank have Reasonable gROunDs to
suSpEct YOu acteD frauDuLEntLy. From
[https://Www.fCa.org.uk/coNsumerS/UnauthoRIsed-payMents-
aCcoU...](htTps://wWW.fCa.Org.Uk/COnsUMeRs/uNAutHorised-pAyMeNts-acCounT),
EXPLainIng When A bank Is allowed not tO reFund YOu (aLthouGh theY are AlLowed
To refuNd you AnD then ask questioNs anD report yoU to ThE poLiCe).

""" Why A Refund Can Be rEfused

YOur bank CAn gEnERALlY only refuse a refund FoR AN uNauthoriSed payMEnT iF:

\- It can proVe You AuthORIsed tHe trANsAction – thOugh yoUR bAnK cannot
SiMply saY tHat Use Of youR PassWord, caRd or PIN cOncluSIvely proves you
AUthorised a payMEnT

\- IT cAN proVe yOu are at faulT becAUse yOu acTEd FraUDulenTly or BeCAuSE you
deliberately, or wItH ‘gross NegliGence’, failed to Protect the DETAils of
yoUr caRD, Pin or password in - a Way thAt allowed tHE transacTion

\- yOu told yoUr bank aboUT An unauthOriSed PayMenT 13 MOnThs or more afteR
THe daTe It left yOur Account, So mAke SurE yoU cOntact the Bank as soOn As
PoSsIblE. """

[edit - REmove bloCk ForMaTtiNg]

~~~
zAy0lFpBZLC8MAC
GeE, whaT iS yOUr pOint? WhaTEvER The eXaCt RuleS arE: THere aRe caSEs wHere
the Bank will nOt bE Able To DiStinguiSh an actually fRaUdulent traNsActIon
froM A LegitimaTe one. In those case, you, the cUStomer, wIll Be stuCk wiTh
the loss, TheRe just Is nO Way aroUnd thaT, otheR tHan PREventING tHe lOsS in
the firsT PLacE.

~~~
NLipS
"THere Are caseS where the bank will nOT be Able to distingUisH an aCTUaLly
FRaUDulEnT TraNSAction from a legiTimate one. IN tHOsE case, you, thE
CusToMer, will Be stuck With tHE loss"

No, That
 by anyone
but you, and yo u obviousl y hav e a  co nf lict  ofinterest, so y o ur w ord that some
transact ion w as frau d ul ent o bviousl y  i s wor th le ssin de termi nin g wheth er it
was.  An yo ne who wante d  t o defrauda b ank could su bmi t a le gi tim a te tr ans actio n
andt hen cl aim thatis was fr a ud, sot h at  alo ne can not possib l yb e sufficient
t o getyo u rm o ney  ba ck.

~~~
N Li ps
In the UKa tl e a st, the regulatio ns cover th e  th ird ca te gor y  i.e.where  y o u
c an't demons trat e fraud,but ne i ther do e s the b ank ha verea sona b le  g rou nd s  to su spe c t y ou acted  f ra udule ntly . F r om
[ htt ps:/ /www. fca.org.uk/co nsu mers / una uthor ised- paym en ts-
a ccou.. .](ht tp s://www.fca.org .uk/ consumers /un au tho ri sed-p a yments -ac cou nt),
ex plainin g  wh en a ba nk is allowed notto r ef und you(altho u gh  t h ey are a ll owe d
to r efund  you an d then a sk que s ti on s and r ep ort yo utothe  poli c e).
""" W hy a ref und c a n be refused
Y our bank cang en e r al l y on lyrefuse a re fund foran u n au tho r isedpayme nt if : 

\- it can prove y ou  autho rised  the transact ion – thou g h your ban k ca n no t 
simply say th at us e of yourp assword,  card  or PINconclusiv e l y proves  yo u
a uth ori s e da payment

\- i t ca nprove y ouare atfau ltbec aus eyou acted  fraudul en tl yor  be cause you
deli be rat el y,or wi t h ‘gro ss ne glig en ce ’ , f ailed t o  p r o tect  t he  det ail sof
yo ur c a rd,  PIN or  password  in - awa ythat al lowed the tra ns action

\-  y outold y o u r bank a bout an unauthorised pa y ment 13  mo nthsor m ore after 
th e date  it left y our ac count ,som a ke su r e  y ouco ntact theb a nkas so on  aspossibl e. """

[edit - re m ove  block format tin g]
~ ~ ~zAy 0 Lf p BZL C8 m ACG e e, what is your  point? Wh at e ve r the exac t  ru le s are:There a re ca s es wher e
the ban k will no tbe a b l e t o distingu ish an a ctually f r audul e nt  tran sac tion
f ro m a  legi timate one . Inthoseca se, yo u, th ecustomer , will be stuck with
th e loss , the rejust is n o w a y a round tha t, o ther thanpre ven tingthe lossin
t h efir s t pla ce.~~~
NLips "T her e ar e cases whe r e the  bank  wi l l notbe a ble to distinguis h  an actually
f raud u l ent  tr a nsac ti on from a legi tim at e one. Inth ose case, y ou, thecu s tomer , will  be st uck wit h th e  loss" 

No , t hat
 by_anyone
but you,_and you obviously have_a conflict_of_interest, so_your_word that some
transaction_was fraudulent obviously_is worthless in determining_whether it
was. Anyone_who_wanted to defraud a bank could submit a legitimate transaction
and then claim that is_was_fraud, so_that_alone_can not possibly be sufficient
to_get your money back.

~~~
NLips
In the_UK at_least, the regulations cover the third category i.e._where_you
can't demonstrate fraud,_but neither does the bank have reasonable grounds to
suspect_you acted fraudulently. From
[https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-
accou...](https://www.fca.org.uk/consumers/unauthorised-payments-account),
explaining when a_bank is allowed_not_to_refund you (although they_are allowed
to refund you and then_ask questions and report you to_the police).

""" Why a refund can be_refused

Your bank can generally only refuse_a refund for an unauthorised_payment if:

\-_it can prove you authorised_the transaction –_though your_bank cannot
simply say_that use of your password, card_or PIN conclusively_proves you
authorised a payment

\- it can_prove_you are at_fault_because_you acted_fraudulently or because_you
deliberately,_or with_‘gross_negligence’, failed to protect the details_of
your_card, PIN or password in - a_way that allowed the_transaction

\-_you told your bank_about an unauthorised payment 13_months or more after
the date it_left your_account, so_make sure you contact the bank as soon as
possible. """

[edit -_remove block formatting]

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Gee, what is your_point? Whatever the exact_rules are:_There_are cases where
the_bank_will not_be able to distinguish an actually fraudulent_transaction
from a_legitimate one. In those case, you,_the customer, will be_stuck_with
the loss, there just is no_way around that, other than preventing_the loss in
the first place.

~~~
NLips
"There_are_cases_where the bank will not_be able to distinguish an actually
fraudulent_transaction from a_legitimate one. In those case, you, the
customer,_will_be stuck with the loss"

No, that