Q&A: How Could a Bank Be Responsible in a Wire Fraud Case?
How can a bank be held responsible for a wire fraud case?
Well, Robinson and Henry doesn’t just accept that the uniform commercial code places liability on one party in this circumstance and another in another circumstance. We look at the facts of the case in a much broader context, not only in the context of bank regulation and bank law, but in the context of general negligence law.
In other words, yes, if you’re a banker or a bank, you have to follow your laws and rules and regulations. But you also have to follow general rules of law, which require people to act prudently in the normal course of their business and not engage in risky activity.
So while obviously the laws that control these particular fact situations are critically important and the outcome do turn on these laws, you have to look at it in a broader context. You can’t just walk away from a dispute or from a loss because you see that the bank is able to rely on one regulation of law that seems to get them off the hook. You have to look at the picture from a much higher altitude and see if you can’t put the behavior of the bank into more of a negligence bucket, and often you can recover on a different theory other than just the violation of the banking rules and regulations.
Call us today at 303-688-0944 to begin your free case assessment.
More Q&As on this Topic:
- What is wire fraud?
- Who is responsible if I am scammed in a wire transaction?
- Why has there been an acceleration of wire fraud?
- How can a bank be held responsible in a wire fraud case?
- What are the risks of wire transfers?
- What are banks obligated to do in Colorado in a wire fraud case?
- Do banks have a responsibility to try to interevene in potential wire fraud?
- What are banks’ obligations in wire fraud cases?