Should banks be held liable for Ponzi schemes?
Friday, December 16, 2011
Posted by ACI Worldwide
Ponzi schemes were named for Charles Ponzi after he defrauded customers out of approximately 20 million dollars back in 1920 (over $225 million today).
While the idea of paying out investors with their own money rather than any money earned legitimately via investment had been around prior to 1920, the name Ponzi become synonymous with the scheme based on the amount of publicity and high dollar loss associated with his activity (including the downfall of six financial institutions).
Over the past few years, we’ve seen a tremendous increase in the magnitude of Ponzi schemes. Fingers have been pointed at the fraudsters, as well as the SEC, and more recently, the guilty label is being extended to the financial institutions providing services for the schemes.
In recent cases, the argument made by prosecutors was that the banks were negligent in not identifying red flags for these investor accounts, making them guilty of ‘aiding and abetting’ these criminals. To be guilty of this, in most states in the US, there must be three elements: the existence of fraud, the defendant’s knowledge of the fraud and proof that the defendant provided considerable assistance to the progression of the fraud scheme. Though this is the standard primarily under US law, this does not permit international financial services firms or banks from being included in the lawsuit, as seen in the case against Banco Santander in 2010, which involved defendants from seven different nations around the world.
The question of ‘knowledge’ of the fraud and providing assistance can be a bit subjective, since the banks didn’t know directly about the scheme. The question is: if they didn’t implement the appropriate steps to look for red flags or simply failed pay attention to them, does this make them guilty? For instance, in the Madoff scheme, an activity monitoring system to detect transfers between investor and personal accounts may have triggered an internal review of the activity and shut down accounts before investors were defrauded of the full $50 billion.
So what can banks do to prevent these schemes, and also ensure they are not on the receiving end of a lawsuit? Financial institutions need to implement a sophisticated transaction monitoring tool that is flexible enough to quickly adapt to the changing fraud schemes. Activity monitoring must be implemented across the enterprise, in order to detect complex patterns of activity that may seem normal alone, but when viewed collectively may be a red flag for a large fraud scheme. Taking proactive measures to ensure that your institution is doing everything possible to prevent fraudulent schemes will help protect customers and keep your institution out of the hotseat should a new scheme appear, despite your best prevention efforts.
Related blog posts
As Aetna pulls out, how the member experience can increase exchange profitability
My heart sank when I did the math on Aetna withdrawing from many health insurance exchanges due to low profitability. Aetna could have avoided 2/3 of its losses by improving its member experience.
Aetna lost roughly $16 per member per month. But health plans can save up to $11 per member per month by enhancing the member experience. The key lies in automation, consolidation and service fees.
Rio 2016 – Once the Games are over, it doesn’t mean fraud is over
The 2016 Rio Games are in full swing—with great story lines and unbelievable performances by incredible athletes, all being watched and admired by a million additional tourists in town (not to mention the many billions watching on TVs and computer screens).
Assessing the impact of the MIF Regulation interchange fee caps
The European Regulation on Interchange Fees for Card-based Payments (or the MIF Regulation for short) came into effect in December 2015. Comprised of four main areas—interchange fee caps, acquirer pricing transparency, the separation of card schemes and processing, and other supporting rules—the regulation will have a profound impact upon the European payments industry and has the potential to reshape the eCommerce payments landscape. No area, however, is poised to cause more of a commotion than the interchange fee caps. Acquirers, card issuers, and payment service providers are all affected, but the impact of interchange fee caps—and what it means for their businesses—varies considerably.
Alternative Payments Will Present New Business Opportunities In The Middle East
The second survey in our ongoing series took us to Dubai and the Cards and Payments Middle Eastern Conference in early June. Much like the blog from Australia, we had some fascinating results but for entirely different reasons. Whilst 64% of the Australian payment experts we interviewed were concerned about being disrupted by new technologies and entrants, only 38% in Dubai agreed with this sentiment. In fact, 39% disagreed with this and said their business was not going to be disrupted by new technologies or entrants. Hmmm... Let’s try and understand the reasons for this huge difference…
The connected world, mobile commerce and fraud
The following Portuguese language contribution comes from one of our many talented Latin America-based colleagues and fintech experts. Based in Sao Paolo, Hugo Costa, general manager of ACI Brazil, provides some great insight into the connected world, mobile commerce and fraud.
ACI empowering girls to code
This summer, ACI had the distinct pleasure of hosting a ‘Coding for Girls’ camp in Omaha, with plans now underway to host additional camps every quarter. It should come as no surprise that women are underrepresented in tech and view tech-related hobbies as a complex, male-driven endeavor. And as such, young women frequently avoid coding altogether, so our great team embarked on this program for girls--introducing them to coding in a fun and interactive way.
Five or so payment stories, five rings = your Olympic payment preview (and a reminder not to stick your head in the water!)
Cue the athletes, start the music, release the doves… it’s time to shimmy down to your skimpy excuse for a bathing suit and head to Copacabana beach to celebrate the 2016 Rio Games (just don’t stick your head in the water)! For those of you lucky enough to be going to the Games, good for you; for the rest of us, we’ll have to read, listen and watch from afar…letting our imaginations fill in the blanks from the all-night parties I am sure will be rocking (and for those party-goers, don’t stick your heads in the water). My Rantings cohort and I will be among those watching from afar, with Mark likely focused on Michael Phelps and the other swimmers and me focused more on tennis player Leander Paes who’s participating in his seventh (7th!!!) Games. With that, we sat down for a virtual chat on payments and Rio.
Higher ed eCommerce gurus on how to make students and staff happy
I love how honestly and openly schools tell each other what works and what doesn’t. Spalding University and Indiana Wesleyan University recently chatted about how they make students and staff happy. I wish you could have joined us for this eCommerce discussion for clients of Colleague® by Ellucian
But you don’t have to miss out on the best quotes. Here are some of our handpicked highlights.
Fintechs seeking bank charters? Yes, really.
The common understanding in the industry is that, as bank regulators gradually inch their way toward regulating financial technology companies that transact banking, lending, and payments, the fintech companies are retreating, trying to move as far from those regulators as possible, for as long as possible. The industry narrative is that, when the regulatory heat eventually gets too high, the fintechs will change business models, or combine with other companies, or seek to be acquired by the very banks they now compete against.
Alarming Brazilian card fraud trends & outlandish risky behavior
In a recent report “Global Consumers: Losing Confidence In The Battle Against Fraud,” it was found that 30% of consumers have experienced card fraud in the past five years. Against a backdrop of 2,260 confirmed data breaches in 2015 and over 4 billion records stolen since in 2013, consumers are losing faith in the ability of providers to protect them.