2026 Media releases
Fraud check delays well worth the inconvenience, says Banking Ombudsman
7 May 2026
Delays in processing payments while banks conduct fraud checks can be frustrating but are necessary to prevent scams, says the Banking Ombudsman.
Nicola Sladden said the scheme recently investigated a case in which a customer was unhappy with such a delay, and the consequences it caused.
The customer asked the bank to transfer $500,000 so he could buy gold. The bank refused because it was concerned the payment could be a linked to a scam.
The customer later said the delay meant he had to pay more for gold because the exchange rate had changed. The scheme found the bank was entitled to refuse to process the payment while it checked the fraud risk and did not uphold his complaint about the delay. However, the customer accepted $1,500 compensation offered by the bank for how it communicated the reason for the delays.
Ms Sladden acknowledged that security checks could sometimes be frustrating, particularly when urgent payments were involved. However, such measures were a vital part of protecting customers from scam-related losses.
“When banks detect high-risk transactions, they have an obligation to conduct a check. This might be frustrating in some circumstances, but can be seen as a small price to pay to prevent being scammed out of thousands of dollars – as has often happened.”
Ms Sladden said banks were mindful of the need to strike a balance between protecting customers and avoiding unnecessary delays.
She said following a few simple steps could minimise the risk of being scammed. They included independently verifying the identity of an organisation by using its official website or publicly listed contact details, rather than relying on the information provided in a message. She said a genuine representative from a bank or similar organisation would never pressure anyone to act quickly or oppose efforts to verify that person’s authenticity.
Checking the bank’s website for scam alerts was also useful because it kept customers alert to current scams. A final tip was never to share PINs, passwords or one-time codes with anyone.
Ms Sladden said customers who suspected they had been scammed should immediately cease all contact with the scammer and notify their bank. The bank could then secure their accounts and review any suspicious activity.
For media enquiries contact:
Nicola Sladden
Banking Ombudsman
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 021 808 059
Banking Ombudsman urges extreme caution over use of crypto ATMs
25 March 2026
People should be highly suspicious of anyone telling them to withdraw cash and deposit it in cryptocurrency ATMs, says the Banking Ombudsman after investigating several scam cases in which people have lost large sums of money using such ATMs.
Crypto ATMs allow people to deposit cash and buy cryptocurrency, which is sent to a digital wallet. Transactions usually happen very quickly and cannot easily be stopped or reversed once completed.
Banking Ombudsman Nicola Sladden said this speed and lack of traceability made crypto ATMs particularly risky when used under pressure or at someone else’s direction.
“We are seeing cases where customers are told to withdraw cash and deposit it in a crypto ATM, often as part of a so-called job offer or investment opportunity.
“Legitimate organisations, such as banks, or potential employers will never ask anyone to make payments in this way.”
In one recent case investigated by the scheme, a customer responded to what appeared to be a genuine online job advertisement. Following instructions, she withdrew $31,500 from her bank account, telling the bank it was to buy a car, but then deposited the cash in a crypto ATM. The funds were transferred to the scammer’s digital wallet and could not be recovered.
In another case, a customer was targeted over a six‑month period after being drawn into what appeared to be a job offer. He withdrew and deposited nearly $65,000 in cash through crypto ATMs, thinking he was investing his money.
“In both cases, the victims believed they were following legitimate instructions,” Ms Sladden said. “That’s why it is so important that people are aware of the risks of using crypto ATMs, and also that they are skeptical about anyone urging them to use these machines.”
Consumer advocates and authorities around the world have expressed concern about the risks of using such machines, given the strong links to scammers and others involved in financial crime, and the Government in New Zealand looking at restricting or banning their use.
Ms Sladden said obvious red flags included requests to keep payments secret or give false information to a bank.
“People should independently verify who they are dealing with, and talk to someone they trust before making large or unusual payments.
“It’s important to stop and ask questions before taking any steps that might result in the loss of money.”
For media enquiries contact:
Nicola Sladden
Banking Ombudsman
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 021 808 059
Banking Ombudsman puts property partnerships under the spotlight this Valentine’s Day
12 February 2026
Partnering with friends or family members can be a great way to get on the property ladder, but it can come with risks, warns the Banking Ombudsman.
Nicola Sladden said a recent dispute investigated by the scheme was a timely reminder for people buying property with others to have a firm understanding of their rights in a partnership.
“Shared financial arrangements can work well when everyone is in agreement about goals and timeframes. But problems can arise when circumstances unexpectedly change,” said Ms Sladden.
“When relationships end, joint accounts, loans and partnerships can become tricky. It’s crucial to understand how your accounts are set up, and what your rights and obligations are. This knowledge can prevent a difficult situation from becoming even more stressful.”
In 2008, Sonia helped her son Nicholas and his wife Laura buy a home. The three formed a partnership to buy the property and jointly borrowed $320,000 from the bank.
When Nicholas and Laura separated in 2023, Sonia and Laura wanted to sell the property, but Nicholas told the bank they were in disagreement about what to do. The bank then refused to act on any instructions from the borrowers until the dispute was resolved. It also refused Sonia’s offer to repay the loan in full so the mortgage could be discharged.
The Banking Ombudsman scheme considered the bank had acted wrongly in refusing to discharge the mortgage. The loan terms allowed any of the three borrowers to repay the loan. Under section 97 of the Property Law Act 2007, a mortgagor has the right to repay a mortgage in full and “redeem” the property. The disagreement between the borrowers did not affect the partnership’s ability to give instructions to the bank because Sonia was able to pass resolutions without the others’ agreement and therefore instruct the bank on the partnership’s behalf.
The bank offered Sonia $10,000 to resolve her complaint, an offer she accepted.
Ms Sladden said the scheme’s guide on relationship breakdowns and banking recommends banking customers:
- Talk openly with your partner about money. Good Shepherd’s Healthy Financial Relationships Toolkit can help.
- Discuss in advance how you would divide assets if you separated, and get legal advice if you decide you need formal arrangements.
- Make sure you understand your bank account mandates, and that they match what you and the joint account holder have agreed to.
- Tell your bank if you believe a joint account holder is using the account in a way you have not agreed to. The bank can freeze the account to keep the money safe, and you can open a separate account for yourself in the meantime.
See the full guide: Relationship breakdowns and banking
Read the case note
For media enquiries contact:
Nicola Sladden
Banking Ombudsman
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 021 808 059