The Superintendence of Financial Services of the Central Bank of Uruguayand (BCU) agreed with an individual who denounced the Itaú bank in relation to “the blocking of his account and exversion (deletion) without his consent of a money transfer, linked to an apparent digital fraud”, according to a resolution of the monetary authority.
The bank’s client reported that on April 13 his Itaú account was credited with “a transfer for $ 50 thousand which was extorted (eliminated) the same day by the institution without their consent as a result of a alleged sale of bitcoins on the Binance platform, providing in this regard digital documents (screen copy of the transaction and proof of sale)”.
Banco Itaú stated “as the basis for the blocking and return of the transfer, that it received information from the sending bank (Scotiabank Uruguay) describing the transfer as fraudulent, as well as the denouncer’s ignorance of the name of the original account holder, the which in turn did not coincide with who would have been his counterpart in the alleged sale of bitcoins”.
Itaú added that the funds were credited and then debited from the account on April 13, while the “issuer ignored the transfer and attached the police report.”
Failure
In the recital of the resolution, the Superintendence of Financial Services maintains that “banking institutions must arbitrate effective security and authentication mechanisms that prevent fraudulent or unauthorized transfers by their clients.”
He also argues that “a Once the transaction is completed, that is, the transfer is accepted, the immobilization and return of funds measures, without the intervention of the legally competent authorities for it, lack legal support“.
“That it should be specified that the bank-client relationship is regulated by the current legal order as well as by the contract between the parties and therefore, unless it has been expressly agreed, there is no legal support to make debits from the accounts of its clients without the prior and express authorization of the owner”, specifies the regulator.
It adds that the “possible contractual breach in the case, in terms of the unavailability of funds to the beneficiary of a transaction that he understands to be legitimate, must be resolved in the competent court.”
Thus, the BCU decided to conclude the proceedings “letting the complainant know that the eventual damage that the unavailability of his funds may have caused him should be resolved in the competent court.”
Likewise, the monetary authority informed the banks Itaú and Scotiabank that, in its “opinion”, the “measures of immobilization of funds without the intervention of the legally competent authorities for it, and of disposition of client funds without the corresponding authorization lack legal backing”.
