Responsibility of Financial Institutions as Potential Intermediaries of Fraud and the Cheapest Cost Avoider Principle
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Generally, a bank may owe a duty of care towards its customers in a negligence claim. In a recent case of Koperasi Sahabat Amanah Ikhtiar Bhd v RHB Investment Bank Bhd, the Court of Appeal extended the duty of care of banks to non-customers. This new ruling has a significant impact on the bank to ensure that the bank will exercise reasonable skill and care in performing its duties to both customers and non-customers. The fact that a contractual relationship does not exist is not a bar to establish a duty of care in negligence claims. The principle of cheapest cost avoider is consistent with the doctrinal approach taken by the Court of Appeal in affirming the duty of care of financial institutions since financial institutions are most likely in the best position to deter fraud and minimise losses due to such over-sight. It is also suggested that such duty should also be applied to other deposit-taking financial institutions such as electronic wallet providers against unauthorised transfer for funds from account holders.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
Alix Kaufmann, ‘Combat Scammers: How to Prevent Fraud for Business Accounts’ Smart Business (June 2022) 50
Bank Negara Malaysia, ‘Anti-Money Laundering, Countering Financing of Terrorism and Targeted Financial Sanctions for Financial Institutions’ (2019) <https://www.bnm.gov.my/documents/20124/938039/AMLCFT+PD.pdf>
Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 2 Appeal Cases 605 (HL)
Chris MacDonnell, ‘Five Ways to Protect Against Bank Account Fraud’ New Hampshire Business Review (2015) 26
Gerald Goh Guan Gan and others, ‘Phishing: A Growing Challenge for Internet Banking Providers in Malaysia’ (2008) 5 Communications of the IBIMA 133 <https://ibimapublishing.com/articles/CIBIMA/2008/252213/252213.pdf>
Gita Radhakrishna, ‘Liability Issues in Internet Banking in Malaysia’ (2009) 7 Communications of the IBIMA 1 <https://ibimapublishing.com/articles/CIBIMA/2009/639132/639132.pdf>
Guido Calabresi, ‘Does the Fault System Optimally Control Primary Accident Costs Safety’ (1968) 33 Law and Contemporary Problems 429 <https://openyls.law.yale.edu/bitstream/handle/20.500.13051/1265/Does_the_Fault_System_Optimally_Control_Primary_Accident_Costs.pdf>
Guido Calabresi, The Costs of Accidents: A Legal and Economic Analysis (Yale University Press 1970)
Jack M Balkin, ‘Room for Maneuver: Julie Cohen’s Theory of Freedom in the Information State’ (2012) 6 Jerusalem Review of Legal Studies 79, 92 <https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/72834888.pdf>
Koperasi Sahabat Amanah Ikhtiar Bhd v RHB Investment Bank Bhd [2023] 1 Current Law Journal 495 (CA)
M’Alister (or Donoghue) v Stevenson [1932] Appeal Cases 562 (HL)
MX Thunis, ‘Questions of Liability in Value Added Network Services: The Case of Electronic Funds Transfers’ in S Schaff (ed), Legal and Economic Aspects of Telecommunications (Elsevier Science Publishers BV 1990) 698
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr, The Common Law (Little, Brown, and Company 1881) 144; John CP Goldberg, ‘Twentieth-Century Tort Theory’ (2003) 91(3) Georgetown Law Journal 513 <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=347340>.
Public Bank Bhd & Anor v Exporaya Sdn Bhd [2013] 1 Malayan Law Journal 507 (CA)
Pushpaleela a/p R Selvarajah v Rajamani d/o Meyappa Chettiar [2019] 2 Malayan Law Journal 553 (FC)
Semac Industries Ltd v 1131426 Ontario Ltd [2001] Ontario Judgments No 3443 (SCJ)