An important decision came from the Supreme Court regarding internet fraud. Examining a dispute before it, the top court ruled that the bank was responsible for the damage in internet fraud.
With the widespread use of the Internet, we started to spend a significant amount of money on the Internet. This causes e-commerce, in particular, to become one of the targets of scammers. The 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court signed an important decision on this issue. The upper court, which examined an incident in Eskişehir, was responsible for the damage caused by the fraud incidents in the internet environment. that the bank is responsible they decided. Here are the details of that decision that concerns everyone who shop online…
A citizen who opened an account at the branch of a private bank in Eskişehir fell victim to internet fraud. To the account of the unnamed citizen, via the branch of the same bank in Iskenderun, Hatay. a fake account has been created. Later, the money in the account in the branch in Eskişehir was transferred to the account opened in the branch in Hatay İskenderun via internet banking. The same money was sent to another city this time and withdrawn from there. Citizens, these saying he didn’t sued the bank. In the defense made by the bank, it was stated that the account holder was sought for money transfers, and all security questions were answered correctly. Eskişehir 3rd Civil Court of First Instance hearing the case, have no fault ruled.
Supreme Court overturned the court’s decision
The citizen, who was victimized due to the events, carried the decision of the Eskişehir 3rd Civil Court of First Instance to the Court of Cassation. 11th Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court The decision made by the review was as follows:
“In the transaction, the plaintiff has acted at fault by cooperating with third parties or otherwise. not proven. The defendant bank did not take the security measures, where the security of the money in the account could not be fully ensured, it could not be protected against the transactions of malicious people. not developed, it is understood that it does not make it compulsory to use these measures for its customers. In this case, the defendant bank is withdrawn from the account. responsible for all money. This should be accepted in principle.”
With the decision taken by the Supreme Court, it was ruled that the victim’s grievances would be covered by the bank. The important decision seems to lead banks to work harder for internet scams…