Fraud involving a payment app after listing goods on a classified portal

The client was the victim of a so-called classified ad fraud. Unknown perpetrators showed interest in goods which the client had advertised for sale on a small ads’ platform. They demanded information from him, allegedly in order to pay for the advertised goods. They fraudulently obtained confidential data from the client, which enabled them to install his payment app on a foreign mobile device. The client immediately responded to a warning SMS from the bank, which informed him that the payment app had been installed on a foreign device. However, the number indicated in the SMS was no longer serviced at the time of the incident. When the client reached the bank by other means, only his card was blocked, but not the payment app. The perpetrators were able to make transactions totaling CHF 4,300 via the payment app. After the client complained to the bank, the bank was only prepared to make a small concession. The Ombudsman was able to achieve that the bank increased its settlement offer to around 50% of the amount of the loss. The client accepted the improved settlement offer.

The unknown perpetrators told the client that the payment and the delivery of the goods would be processed via a postal service. The client was sent a QR code outside the small ads’ platform, which he scanned. In this way, the perpetrators fraudulently obtained data that enabled them to register the client’s payment app on a third-party device. This was communicated to him by the bank in a warning SMS. The client immediately realised that he had fallen victim to fraud and called the emergency number provided in the SMS, which was no longer staffed at that time. The client immediately ended the phone call and tried to contact the bank by other means. If he had listened to the recording of the number that was no longer in service until the end, he would have been given the number of a 24-hour hotline.

Between his call to the unattended number and the time he reached the bank, the majority of the fraudulent transactions were carried out. During the conversation with the bank, he was also not asked about the payment app. The bank merely blocked his cards. After the client requested reimbursement for the fraudulent payments from the bank, it was only prepared to reimburse 50% of the two payments that were made after the telephone conversation with the bank. The client was not satisfied with a compensation of CHF 170 and submitted the case to the Ombudsman.

The client claimed that valuable time was lost due to the reference to an out of service emergency number, and that the loss-relevant transactions could have been stopped earlier. The bank took the position that the client had caused the fraud through his conduct. The bank took the view that its warning systems had functioned correctly and that it was the client’s responsibility to request the appropriate blocking measures in the event of suspicious activity.

The Ombudsman examined the facts of the case based on the documents submitted. He expressed understanding for the client’s reasoning, particularly with regard to the text of the warning SMS. In his opinion, it was not comprehensible why reference was made to a telephone number that was no longer in service at the time of dispatch. He also raised the question with the bank as to why the specific transaction pattern had not been identified as typically fraudulent. He also took a critical view of the bank’s position that employees in such a situation did not have to actively ask whether, in addition to cards, the payment app linked to the bank should also be blocked. From the Ombudsman’s point of view, it was the bank’s duty as the expert party to provide targeted support to the client in such an emergency situation and to examine all appropriate security measures.

The Ombudsman therefore suggested to the bank that it should review the case again and consider a further gesture of goodwill. Subsequently, the bank agreed to pay an additional substantial amount on top of the smaller compensation already provided, so that 50% of the client’s loss was covered. The client accepted this solution, which allowed the mediation procedure to be concluded.