Despite bank of America’s pledge to stand by its customers who are victims of fraud (including a $0 liability clause), a Florida businessman is discovering that this online guarantee isn’t so ironclad, after a keylogger infecting his machine stole his password and wired $90,000 to an account at a bank in Latvia.
Bank of America is taking the position that since the bank’s own computers were not hacked, the bank has no responsibility for the loss. Parex Bank, the bank in Latvia that received the money, has frozen $70,000 of the $90,000 transfer while the investigation is pending. The rest of the money was withdrawn by someone with access to the account prior to the funds being frozen.
While yes, the bank’s computers themselves were not hacked, I would still have to say that morally (and probably legally), BofA still has to own up to the fact that it promised not to hold its customers liable for fraud, and made no apparent distinction in its guarantees that a virus infecting a client’s computer would amount to a different hill of beans. Further, any bank (including Bank of America) would gladly credit a person their stolen funds if the fraud involved a stolen credit card. Such a fraud also doesn’t demonstrate a compromise in the bank’s computers or resources… so why is this any different?
I have to admit, as a BofA customer myself, I’m not sure I would want to keep doing business with a bank that promises something and then leaves you out in the cold when that promise is most needed.