Antonio called the bank several times over the weekend seeking an explanation, but it was not until Monday that the bank told him clearly why, or told him what evidence he could provide to allay the bank's concerns. Antonio promptly supplied the information. The following day, having still not heard back from the bank, Antonio arranged the payment through other means. However, the four-day delay coincided with a shift in exchange rates, forcing him to pay an extra $5,000 for the gold. Antonio complained that the bank had caused the delay and should reimburse the $5,000. The bank refused, instead offering him $1,000 for its inadequate service, along with $500 in lost interest while his money was not in his savings account.

Our investigation

We found the bank had the right to refuse to act on Antonio's instructions based on its reasonable suspicions that the instructions might be part of a scam, money laundering or some other criminal activity. The bank was entitled to make an assessment about what was or was not suspicious in the circumstances, just as it was entitled to say what it required from Antonio to allay its suspicions. We therefore found the bank was not liable for the extra $5,000 Antonio incurred as a result of exchange rate changes because these were not direct losses attributable to any bank error or wrongdoing.  

As for the bank’s service, we considered it neither prompt nor efficient, particularly given the fact Antonio had repeatedly stressed to the bank the urgency of acting on his payment instructions. Two staff members had told him on the Friday that the bank would probably resolve the matter by the Monday, making it more imperative that the bank did as promised, and also that it kept Antonio updated throughout.

Outcome

We did not uphold Antonio’s complaint. Antonio accepted the bank's offer of $1,500.