Fake Brad Pitt, but real banker responsibility?

The broadcast of a show about a victim of a «romance scam» who sent over €830,000 to a fake Brad Pitt has ignited passions, and memes of varying taste have proliferated on social media.

Or, behind this situation, which might seem laughable at first glance, lies a truly dramatic reality for the victim who was deceived, lost all her savings, and is now in a severe depression.

Once the victim has filed a complaint, two solutions are available to them to try to recover their funds:

• First option: hope that the criminal investigation concludes quickly and allows them to recover some of their funds.,
• Second option: take legal action against their bank in civil court to obtain compensation for their damages.

The author of these lines does not believe in the first option.

Indeed, the anaemic budget of the justice system and the asphyxiation of investigative services do not allow for the allocation of the necessary resources to economic and financial offenses for the swift conviction of perpetrators and the recovery of funds.

So, if the investigation is successful, it will be in several years, and the scammer, often located abroad, will have already had time to disappear with the loot.

The second option is preferable in my opinion.

Indeed, even though the account-holding banker cannot block a transaction that seems suspicious to them under the principle of non-interference, it is their duty of vigilance to contact their client to inquire about the nature of the transactions and to inform them that it may be a scam.

One can imagine the conversation between the banker and his client in this situation:

– Yes, Madam. You transferred over €830,000 to an account with Bank X. Can you tell me the reasons for this transaction?
Of course, I sent money to my lover. You know him, he's a famous actor.
– Do you know the principle of the romance scam, Madam?

A brief conversation like this is usually enough to convince the client to block ongoing operations and initiate recall procedures without delay.

Besides, this type of operation is carried out in several transfers, so in reality, if the banker acts quickly, he can even limit the extent of his client's damage.

The banker who does not contact their client in the presence of suspicious transactions incurs civil liability and may be ordered to compensate all or part of the loss suffered by their client. This procedure will be faster than criminal proceedings, and the bank will necessarily be a more solvent debtor than the scammer.

Similarly, the scammer's banker can also be held liable for not realizing that the account opened with them was being used to commit fraud. The victim can therefore also take action against them.

However, very often, these banks are located in other European Union countries, so it is complicated to take action against them, and it is actually simpler to turn to one's own banker.