The action concerns compensation for loss caused by unauthorized wire transfers from a deposit account via internet banking. Under the bank’s no-fault liability...
Determining the bank’s degree of responsibility for taking security measures in fraudulent card transactions...
Surety’s liability cap in commercial loans and the bank’s notification duty...
The bank’s gross fault where depositors’ identity data is compromised...
SUMMARY: Draining a deposit account via online banking—bank’s no-fault liability.
In the case between the parties... the decision of the Civil Court of First Instance dated ... and numbered ... was appealed by the plaintiff’s counsel, and the appeal was found to have been filed in time. After the report prepared by the Review Judge was heard, and the pleadings, hearing minutes, and all documents in the file were read and examined, the matter was considered as follows:
The plaintiff’s counsel claimed that, without the client’s knowledge or consent, 25,000.00 TL was transferred via online banking to an unknown person’s account from the account held at the defendant bank, and that the client suffered loss due to gaps in the bank’s security systems, seeking recovery with interest.
The defendant bank’s counsel argued the transaction was made with the plaintiff’s credentials, that the bank was not at fault, and asked for dismissal.
The court, relying on the evidence and the expert report, held that for theft via online banking, banks are liable under strict liability, and the plaintiff’s exclusive fault was not proven; the action was therefore accepted.
