“Biometric bank identification vs fake powers of attorney” — Tatiana Tereshchenko for the blog Pravo.ru
Recently, banks began to introduce biometric identification, which allows remote control of funds and deposits in any banks and, as a result, reduces the need for issuing powers of attorney. Does this solve an old problem where the bank has properly identified the customer but has issued other people's funds to the fraudster?
What's the point?
The bank is obliged to repay the deposit to the depositor on demand (article 837 of the civil code). So, if the bank issues funds to an unidentified person under a fake power of attorney, he is responsible for violation of the bank deposit agreement to the client. However, in fact, everything is more complicated.
The presentation of a false power of attorney (as well as other fraudulent instructions for the disposal of funds) is a crime aimed at the possession of someone else's funds fraudulently. However, the bank is responsible for its illegal actions, but not for the actions of the fraudster. To bring the bank to justice, it is necessary to prove that it was the bank that committed the violation.
Accordingly, if the bank has identified properly in accordance with the bank's requirements, the risk of loss of funds remains with the client. And here it should be noted that the identification is quite primitive (comparison of name, address, etc.) and is designed to identify only the most "rough" unpretentious fakes.
You can, of course, to prove that the bank employee was in collusion with a fraudster. However, it is a theory. It is difficult to prove improper verification. Even more difficult — collusion with an unidentified person. Criminal proceedings can take years, and it is impossible to bring a civil claim without it.
In other words, the problem is simple – the bank has limited opportunities for customer identification. And practice indirectly confirms it.