Hacker News Reader

This can obviously not be the entire fraud prevention mechanism:

> Zelle simply "implemented a mechanism that allows banks to claw back funds from the recipient's account and return them to the sender."

I'm curious to see what the prerequisites for such a clawback are, both on the side of the payer (a police report? a signed statement? a click in an app?) and the payee (what happens if the money isn't in their account anymore?).

View on HN

It's possible there are no real protections to ensure a clawback is "legit," other than shifting the burden of verification from the customer to the bank. Now fraudsters need to convince the bank that a payment was invalid, compared to convincing a customer that an address is what they expected.

Possibly, but I highly doubt that banks would want to get into the weeds of dispute arbitration for a free P2P payments system.

Zelle is like a bank consortium, no? They should have a vested interest in both identifying fraudulent transactions as well as customers using their accounts for fraud so they can close them down

Yeah, they don't want to, which is why they spent 5+ years avoiding it until the FTC forced their hand...

Is that any different than for, say, checks?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com