Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisstu | Hacker News Reader

And guess who is paying for her mistake? Everyone except the perpetrator. That bank refund comes from somewhere.

Exactly, which is why banks are loathe to approve such transfers in the first place. I'm wholly surprised that the banking ombudsman is able to force such transaction reversals.

> wholly surprised that the banking ombudsman is able to force such transaction reversal

They can't force transaction reversals or clawbanks. They actually force the bank to take the hit.

In my country this is only possible if enough funds are in the target account (banks coorporate), it's not a general customer refund...

In the UK if the funds cannot be recovered the bank takes the loss for push fraud.

https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/what-to-do-if...

It has made banks very nervous about transfers as even payments to a legitimate business can be part of a a fraud (e.g. buy gold and hand it over to the fraudster for "safe keeping") and people have complained they have had problems making legitimate transfers.

It seems unfair to other customers of the bank to require the bank to "return" 75% of the money.

This should be a matter for business insurance.

Small businesses will often not have business insurance, and private individuals will not.

I doubt insurance covers this sort of thing though.

ti is quite annoying getting "is this a fraud?" warnings on every transfer - even small amounts to my kids!

Oh, that really explains some stories I have heard about cars. That banks simply refuse some purchases from more independent sellers. Sometimes the fraud detection and avoidance can go too far.

I did not know about it as a problem with cars, but it makes sense that it is.

It is likely to come up a lot with private sales. Banks are unlikely to let the seller deposit cash (because of money laundering rules), so if they do not allow a payment by transfer its going to become impossible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com