€95,000 Lost : Crypto, Diamonds, and Deception
- BECTRA
- Apr 2
- 2 min read
Crypto-assets, high-risk investments, and bank vigilance — how far does your bank’s responsibility go ?
A Series of Transfers to Unregulated Investments
Two private individuals decided to invest their savings in so-called alternative investments, which were presented as promising opportunities:
The purchase of diamonds through a trading company,
And investments in crypto-assets via an online platform.
In total, nearly €94,000 was transferred via multiple bank wire transfers to various foreign accounts — over twenty transactions made within a few months.
🚨 A Clear Scam, A Silent Bank
After realizing that the promised assets were either non-existent or unreachable, the clients understood they had fallen victim to a well-organized scam.
They attempted to hold their bank accountable, arguing that it should have:
Blocked the transfers, or at least
Warned them about the unusual and risky nature of the transactions.
Should a Bank Block Suspicious Transactions?
This question is at the heart of many legal disputes today:
Can a bank be held responsible for not preventing a wire transfer — even if the customer initiated it?
The answer depends on whether the transaction appears “objectively irregular.”
If the transaction is:
Consistent with previous account activity,
Funded with available cash,
Sent to a European recipient,
The bank has no legal obligation to intervene.
However, if the transaction shows clear warning signs, such as:
An unusually high amount,
A recipient flagged for suspicious activity,
A highly atypical transfer,
The bank may be required to exercise heightened vigilance.
In this case, the clients were retirees with an income level consistent with the transfer amounts, and the operations did not appear overtly suspicious based on the bank’s available information.
Bank Vigilance Has Its Limits
Regulations related to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorism financing are not designed to protect customers from poor investment decisions.
A bank is not obligated to verify whether an investment is wise or profitable. Nor is it required to investigate the purpose of a transaction, unless there is concrete evidence of fraud or criminal activity.
In the absence of red flags, simply executing a wire transfer does not constitute negligence.
What About Informing the Customer?
Here again, the bank has an obligation to inform the client only in specific cases, such as:
When the bank offers a financial product (e.g. mutual funds, life insurance),
Or when the customer explicitly requests financial advice.
In this case, the clients acted entirely on their own, based on online contacts, and never consulted the bank or informed it of their investment plans.
In Conclusion: Banking Freedom, Personal Responsibility
In a world where fraudulent investment schemes are becoming increasingly sophisticated, often wrapped in promises of unrealistic returns, this case is a strong reminder of a simple truth:
✅ Your bank must act with prudence, but not with foresight.
Unless there are clear warning signs, your bank cannot be held responsible for the consequences of your personal investment choices — no matter how disastrous the outcome.
Comments