Crypto-Asset Scam : €118,156 Lost – Can the Bank Be Held Responsible ?

BECTRA
Apr 1
3 min read

In today’s digital age, crypto-asset scams are becoming increasingly sophisticated, leaving many investors wondering : How far does a bank’s responsibility go when it comes to suspicious crypto-related transfers ?

A recent ruling by the Paris Court of Appeal sheds light on this pressing question — and offers valuable lessons for anyone dealing with crypto-assets.

The Case: An Investment Opportunity Gone Wrong

It started with a seemingly attractive investment proposal in the world of crypto-assets. A woman, convinced by a third-party company, made a series of large international transfers to a bank account in Lithuania.

Later, she realized she had been scammed and requested that her bank reimburse her over €118,000, claiming the bank failed in its duty to protect her from fraudulent activity.

First Court Ruling : The Bank Acted Within Its Duties

The civil court ruled in favor of the bank. According to the judgment, the bank:

Did not identify any obvious irregularities in the transactions;
Acted according to the principle of non-interference — banks are not expected to monitor or assess the motivations behind every client transaction unless there are clear signs of fraud.

As a result, the client’s request was rejected, and she was ordered to pay €1,000 in legal costs.

Appeal : Renewed Claims, New Arguments

Still believing the bank bore some responsibility, the client appealed the decision. This time, she argued that:

The transferred amounts were high and unusual for her account;
The repetitive nature of the transfers to a foreign recipient should have raised red flags;
The bank should have warned her about the potential risks.

She demanded:

A full reimbursement (€118,156), or alternatively a partial refund (€94,524.80) as compensation for her loss of opportunity;
Moral damages for emotional distress.

Court of Appeal Ruling : No Signs of Fraud, No Bank Liability

The Paris Court of Appeal upheld the original decision, reaffirming that the bank:

Processed the transfers using the client’s own covered funds;
Transferred the funds to a licensed institution within the European Union;
Had no legal obligation to interfere, as there were no clear indications of fraud at the time.

The court concluded that the principle of non-interference applies :

A bank is not responsible for judging or preventing a client’s financial decisions unless there is an obvious and objective indicator of fraud.

The client was ordered to pay an additional €2,000 in legal costs related to the appeal.

What This Means for You : Bank Vigilance Has Its Limits

This case highlights a fundamental legal truth that all investors should remember:

🔍 A bank cannot predict or detect every scam — especially when transactions appear normal on the surface.

Even if fraud is discovered after the fact, the bank is not automatically liable for reimbursing the client, unless there were visible anomalies during the transaction process.

3 Essential Tips for Crypto Investors

To protect yourself from falling into similar traps, keep these best practices in mind :

Do your homework – Research any company or platform before investing in crypto-assets.
Don’t be fooled by appearances – Having a European IBAN does not guarantee legitimacy.
Don’t assume your bank will catch a scam – The responsibility to verify and evaluate risks lies first and foremost with you.

Final Thoughts

As crypto scams become more professional and harder to detect, investors must remain vigilant. While banks play a role in protecting their clients, they are not foolproof safeguards.

In the end, your best protection is your own informed decision-making.