The law firm filed a pro se claim against Citibank under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), requiring a showing that Citibank aided and abetted the hacker by “knowingly and with intent to defraud, access[ing] a computer without authorization, . . . and by means of such conduct further[ing] the intended fraud….” 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4).  The firm alleged the bank’s maintenance of the hacker’s account, allowing the deposit of stolen funds and permitting their withdrawal, constituted the requisite assistance. The district court rejected the allegations of Citibank involvement as insufficient “even under a willful-blindness theory,” noting the plaintiff did not allege “facts that indicate that the bank ‘closed its eyes’ to the hacker’s obvious crime” nor did it “allege any unusual activity that might have raised the bank’s suspicion or any vetting irregularities,” and dismissed the claim without prejudice.  2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71713, at 10.

While this claim under the CFAA is novel, it is also serves to show that banks can be subject to aiding and abetting liability when properly plead.  L&R has successfully brought aiding and abetting claims, including in a major, serial loan fraud case, representing bank no. 2 against bank no. 1, where bank no. 1 discovered the fraud, forcing the fraudster to commit the same fraud against bank no. 2 in order to be repaid, with bank no. 1 later paying a substantial settlement.

For further information, contact Salvatore Scanio at sscanio@ludwigrobinson.com or 202-289-7605 or Robert Ludwig at rludwig@ludwigrobinson.com or 202-289-7603.

Previously, the court dismissed all non-UCC Article 4A counts, including breach of contract and violation of federal banking statutes.  Federal Ins. Co. v. Benchmark Bank, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11152 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 24, 2018).  Addressing the contract claim, the court found the account holders were not parties to any relevant electronic banking agreement with the bank; rather, the agreements were between their related entity and the bank.  Id. at *13-15.  Apparently not raised in that earlier decision was the settled rule that in the absence of an applicable agreement identifying an agreed security procedure, the bank would bear strict liability for any unauthorized payments.  See UCC §§ 4A-202(b), 4A-204(a).

Now on summary judgment, the court concluded the bank’s security procedures were commercially reasonable as a matter of law under UCC § 4A-202(b), though it did not use common multifactor authentication (i.e., the use of two of: something the user knows, something the user has, and something the user is).  2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23315, at *32.  The court held nonetheless that the bank’s use of “layered security by utilizing unique usernames and passwords, security challenge questions triggered by a risk algorithm, account lockout after three unsuccessful login attempts, IP blacklisting, and dual authorization” satisfied banking agency guidelines, relying primarily on dual authorization.  Id. at *25-29.

In considering Article 4A’s good faith requirement, the court initially indicated the bank “acted according to the reasonable expectations of the parties,” where the customer understood it was “not checking whether a receiving entity had a relationship to or prior history” with the customer, “whether a recipient’s name was of Eastern European origin, or where an originating IP address was located,” because the ACH agreement provided the “purpose of the security procedures in place was ‘for verification of authenticity and not to detect an error in the transmission or content of an Entry.’”  Id. at *34-35.  The court nowhere took into account customary industry practices in considering whether the bank should have applied fraud detection to the transactions, including if the customer previously sent transfers to such recipients.  The court concluded, however, there were genuine issues of material fact on whether the bank accepted the transfers in good faith and in compliance the ACH agreement and customer instructions, noting numerous transfers exceeded the agreement’s $50,000 limit per ACH transfer, and a dispute over whether the customer’s employee had authority to conduct transactions on certain accounts.  Id. at *36-40.

In a remarkable coda, the court upheld the bank’s setoff defense for attorney’s fees based on an indemnification provision in the customer agreement.  The court concluded that indemnification was not inconsistent with UCC Article 4A, allowing the bank to set off its attorneys’ fees and costs against a plaintiff’s damages claims, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23315, at *46-49, misciting Choice Escrow and Land Title, LLC v. BankcorpSouth Bank, 754 F.3d 611, 625 (8^th Cir. 2014), where the bank was the prevailing party.  In contrast, Benchmark Bank sought to invoke the provision even if it were found to be the responsible, non-prevailing party.  The court’s holding adopting that notion is inconsistent with the objectives of UCC Article 4A, if not the contractual indemnification language irtself, which the court did not construe.  Apparently no motion for reconsideration was filed, and shortly after the decision issued, the case settled.

For further information, contact Salvatore Scanio at sscanio@ludwigrobinson.com or 202-289-7605 or Robert Ludwig at rludwig@ludwigrobinson.com or 202-289-7603.

Sal’s presentation focused on the legal regime for allocating liability for unauthorized fund transfers, including wire transfers, ACH transactions, and SWIFT transfers.  He discussed several key and recent cases under UCC Article 4A that have grappled with the breadth of the “security procedure” defense, applied the UCC test for determining whether a bank’s procedures are “commercially reasonable,” and addressed circumstances where banks were considered to have or have not acted in “good faith.”  He covered applicable regulatory guidelines issued by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council and the New York State Department of Financial Services, including recent developments on reporting cybercrime.

Sal’s presentation also addressed the continuing trend in the payment card arena in which fraud liability is shifting from issuers to acquirer/merchants under card network rules and recent suits brought by issuing banks against merchants for data breaches.   (For an overview of the evolving payment card system and developing loss allocation, see Sal Scanio’s prior article, Payment Card Fraud, Data Breaches and Emerging Payment Technologies, XXI Fidelity L.J. 59 (2015)).

Finally, Sal outlined a number of practical measures that can be taken by financial institutions to reduce their legal and compliance risk.

For further information, contact Salvatore Scanio at sscanio@ludwigrobinson.com or 202-289-7605.

The bank received a $440,000 wire request purportedly from the customer, an escrow company, for transfer to a beneficiary’s account in the Republic of Cyprus.  The request, received over the Internet using the customer’s login and password, was authenticated via a secure ID token downloaded on the customer’s computer to show it had been initiated from its registered IP address. The customer, a common malware target as an escrow company, had been attacked and its purported request was unauthorized.

Significantly, in establishing online banking services, the customer had declined the use of “Dual Control,” as offered by the bank, requiring two users using separate logins and passwords to process wire transfers, as well as daily limits on wire transfer activity.  Subsequently, the customer inquired whether foreign wire transfers could be blocked to avoid fraudulent wires.  The bank advised that it was unable to stop just foreign wires, recommending again dual control which the customer still declined.

On appeal as in the district court, the customer argued that the security procedures offered were not commercially reasonable because none involved transactional analysis whereby wire transfers are subject to individual fraud review.  The Eighth Circuit disagreed, affirming thatit would be impracticable for the bank to review every outgoing wire and that there was no genuine question of fact whether the bank was required to use transactional analysis as a matter of reasonable commercial procedures.  The Eighth Circuit concluded that the security procedures offered were commercially reasonable for that customer, observing:

[T]his appears to be a case where “an informed customer refuses a security procedure that is commercially reasonable and suitable for that customer and insists on using a higher-risk procedure because it is more convenient or cheaper[,]” in which case “the customer has voluntarily assumed the risk of failure of the procedure and cannot shift the loss to the bank.”

Id. at *26-27 (quoting UCC § 4A-203 cmt. 4).

Turning to whether the bank had proved it accepted the payment order in good faith under UCC § 4A-202(b), the Eighth Circuit described the good faith test as follows:

[W]hile there may be some evidentiary overlap between the commercial reasonableness of a bank’s security procedures and its compliance with reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing, we do not believe that the two inquiries are coextensive. While the commercial reasonableness inquiry concerns the adequacy of a bank’s security procedures, the objective good faith inquiry concerns a bank’s acceptance of payment orders in accordance with those security procedures. In other words, technical compliance with a security procedure is not enough under Article 4A; instead . . . the bank must abide by its procedures in a way that reflects the parties’ reasonable expectations as to how those procedures will operate.

[T]he focus of our good faith inquiry is on the aspects of wire transfer that are left to the bank’s discretion. . . .Where, as here, a bank’s security procedures do not depend on the judgment or discretion of its employees, the scope of the good-faith inquiry under Article 4A is correspondingly narrow. . . . [T]o establish that it acted in good faith, [the bank] must establish that its employees accepted and executed the . . . payment order in a way that comported with [the customer’s] reasonable expectations, as established by reasonable commercial standards of fair dealing.

Id. at *29-31.  The court concluded that the bank met its burden because: (1) the customer was aware that the only time the bank’s employees saw the payment order was after the wire had cleared its security procedures, (2) the customer was also aware that the employees’ role was to route payment orders, not to check for irregularities, (3) the “payment order was not so unusual that it should have raised eyebrows,” as the amount was not unusual for the customer, and (4) the bank was under no obligation to review the memo line of the payment order.  Id. at *32-33.  The Eighth Circuit contrasted this case with Experi-Metal, Inc. v. Comerica Bank, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 62677 (E.D. Mich. June 13, 2011), where the district court found a lack of good faith by the bank in allowing, inter alia, $5 million in overdrafts from an account that had a zero balance.

Finally, the Eighth Circuit addressed the bank’s counterclaim for attorney’s fees based on an indemnification provision in the customer agreement.  The district court had found that the indemnification provision conflicted with Article 4A, and dismissed the counterclaim.  The Eighth Circuit reversed:

[The bank’s] counterclaim seeks attorney’s fees, not damages stemming from the fraudulent payment order, and Article 4A contains no provision allocating attorney’s fees between the bank and its customer in the event of litigation.  Although awarding attorney’s fees to a bank under an indemnification agreement might reduce a customer’s overall recovery against that bank, it would do so for reasons extrinsic to Article 4A’s attempts to balance the risk of loss due to a fraudulent payment order. We thus conclude that the portion of the indemnification provision relating to attorney’s fees is not inconsistent with Article 4A and that [the bank] may seek attorney’s fees from [the customer] under this provision.

Id. at *38-39. Plainly, a bank’s ability to obtain attorney’s fees upon prevailing in customer claims under Article 4A may become a significant factor in the resolution of such claims.

Choice Escrow represents another decision illustrating the importance of bank customer agreements in allocating losses for unauthorized electronic funds transfers.  See Salvatore Scanio and Robert W. Ludwig, Surging, Swift and Liable? Cybercrime and Electronic Payments Fraud Involving Commercial Bank: Who Bears the Loss?, 16 J. of Internet L. 3 (April 2013). 

For further information, contact Salvatore Scanio at sscanio@ludwigrobinson.com or 202-289-7605, or Robert Ludwig at rludwig@ludwigrobinson.com or 202-289-7603.