Santander Bank has been Deemed Not Liable for Customer’s $750k Crypto Loss

This content was produced in partnership with 99 bitcoins.

A court case has been brought to an abrupt halt after an Appeals Court Panel deemed that the bank Santander had no legal responsibility to disrupt authorized transactions, and so is not liable for the loss of $750k worth of crypto by one of their customers in an alleged scam.

All of this occurred in a Massachusetts appeals court, involving crypto investor Loureco Garcia and the multi-billion-dollar company Santander.

Understanding Crypto

Cryptocurrency is gaining popularity at an exponential rate across the US, with one report showing that 28 percent of American adults own crypto and 14 percent plan a future investment in it.

Many investors appreciate crypto's growth potential, decentralized structure, and enhanced security.

It also has multiple different uses. Crypto can be used as a regular form of currency to make all kinds of purchases ranging from drinks at Starbucks to Tesla cars. It has also been expertly adopted by the top online crypto casinos. These are platforms where gamblers can wager and withdraw in crypto funds while enjoying the increased security, faster transaction speeds, and glamorous bonuses that more traditional sites simply cannot match.

Crypto can be more secure than other payment methods. It isn't influenced by outside institutions, IE, banks. Instead, its blockchain operates as a giant public ledger with encrypted transactions, so it's much harder for hackers to find their sources. However, as Garcia discovered, owning crypto does not make one immune to scams.

The Allegations

According to Garcia, the fraud took place between December 13, 2021, and January 4, 2022. Garcia shared that he made two separate card transactions on the legitimate site crypto.com to purchase digital assets. In order to do this, he initiated seven wire transfers at Santander branches, totaling just over $750k.

The newly purchased crypto funds were then sent to a fraudulent website going by the name of Coinegg. This site then prevented Garcia from accessing his crypto and stole his funds.

Accusations Towards Santander

Garcia, it seems, believes that some of the blame landed on Santander for authorizing the transactions. In his appeal, he drew attention to the following quote, which is displayed on its website: ‘If we see any transactions that follow patterns fraudsters typically use, we will text you or email you to ask whether or not you authorized the transactions.’

The Ruling

However, the appeals court panel ruled in favor of Santander. They stated that Garcia had authorized every single transaction himself with the bank and that they had no legal duty to intervene.

Santander’s agreement does state that they ‘may decline or prevent any or all transactions,’ but the panel drew attention to the fact that they have no legal obligation to do so.

Since Garcia had been unable to identify any contract terms or legal duty breached by the bank, his accusations against them were void. Instead, Garcia was told that he had failed to allege the false or deceptive conduct that would have been required of him in order to claim that Santander had been negligent towards, misinterpreted, or violated any of Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A.

Conclusion

The unfortunate events that have fallen on Mr. Garcia act as a warning to all internet users as to how advanced scams have become in the modern day. Luckily, there are several preventative measures we can take, including using virtual private networks when browsing the internet, making use of free website checkers, and conducting extensive research on particular websites and companies.

If you or anyone you know has a gambling problem, call 1-800-GAMBLER.