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
Detecting Internal Fraud by ‘Breaking Bad’
There has been no shortage of news stories around the banking industry and its vulnerability to internal fraud, particularly that the industry has limited internal surveillance. Internal fraud has proven to be news-driven (and news-worthy); it’s a great feature lead-in story and scintillating red-meat for mass consumption. Internal fraud events are obviously a reputational risk for banks, but then take a huge turn into regulatory risk territory, before winding up squarely a legal risk (and the headline-grabbing fines that come with it). Finally, a strategic and market risk bubble up as customers are lost to competitors.
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).
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.
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.
South African card fraud trends & risky consumer behavior
In conjunction with the PASA International Payments Conference this week, we decided to take a look at some recent consumer fraud data from the host nation, South Africa. The market is very similar to the global averages, in that a shockingly high number of consumers continue to experience card fraud. Despite the number of fraud attacks and breaches, consumers in South Africa continue to engage in risky behavior such as providing information in phishing attempts and writing down their PIN numbers.
July: the hottest shopping time of the year for consumers, retailers—and fraudsters
Summer is in full swing, and while many people equate this time of year with beach-hopping and BBQs, retailers—and those of us who keep them in business— are quickly making July one of the most exciting shopping months of the year. Irresistible online sales and promotions abound, and with that, so does the risk of fraud. In fact, eCommerce fraud attempt rates in July, 2016 (1.6%) are slightly higher than fraud rates in December, 2015 (1.2%), which is the busiest holiday shopping time of the year.
Three things that it takes to be in the Fraud Management Business in 2016; a survey reflection
On the heels of ACI’s latest Consumer Fraud Survey, recurring questions have continued to solidify themes. Let me summarize the results for you: There is incrementally more card fraud, consumers are not changing their behavior all that much in reaction to it, and they expect any issues to be addressed and resolved more easily today than in years past. Of course, this is about what we should be anticipating in our “always on”, service and convenience oriented, mobile world. So, with that said, here’s what fraud management means to consumers and fraud managers in 2016.
Consumers want access Merchants want simple global and secure opportunities How to achieve both
While riding the local commuter rail on my last leg home from NYC, I sat next to a woman who was on her smartphone shopping on what looked like a Chinese website. I smiled to myself after just having spent the day talking about the massive opportunities presented in the borderless world of eCommerce. The scenario was very timely as the day’s discussion centered on providing consumers with access to goods and services and the merchants’ opportunity to serve them anytime, anywhere with the payment options they desire.
EMV in the US The picture six months on Part 2
EMV implementation – the side effects
EMV in the US The picture six months on Part 1
It has been six months since the EMV liability shift occurred in the US on October 1, 2015 – and it’s time to assess our progress, challenges and outlook.