Nothing about payments gave bank any reason to intervene

Categories:

Fraud & scams, Investment,

Summary:

In August 2025, Eleanor began looking online for higher-return investments after her term deposit matured. She was contacted by people who claimed to represent an investment business and believed she was buying bonds and later shares. Over two days, she moved $280,000 from her New Zealand account into a service offering low-cost international transfers and an Australian bank account in her own name. She later sent $23,868 to an Australian company account.

Published:

November 2026

After discovering she had been scammed, she complained the bank should have questioned the transactions, warned her about a possible scam, and done more to recover her money.

Our investigation

We listened to Eleanor’s call with the bank before the August transfers and reviewed the bank’s records. The call was about transfer limits and options for moving $300,000 from Eleanor’s New Zealand account to an Australian bank account in her own name. Eleanor said she felt anxious because of the amount, and she referred briefly to a call from “funds people”. But she did not say she was investing and asked only about how to transfer her funds to her own account in Australia. There was nothing else in the call to suggest the possibility that she was being scammed. The bank staff member correctly outlined the bank’s processes for transferring the funds.

We examined Eleanor’s claim that a branch staff member later suggested she use a digital payment service. The records did not back up that claim. There was no record of any further call about that service, and the bank’s records did not show it gave that advice.

We reviewed the scam payment Eleanor made to the Australian company account. The bank confirmed that, when Eleanor made the payment, internet banking displayed a message that it was unable to check the payee details, which would be correct because international payments are not subject to a confirmation of payee check.

Eleanor had gone to a branch a week later, on 29 September, where it appeared the bank gave her a printout confirming the payment had been made. The bank confirmed the funds left the recipient account on 23 September. That meant that, even if the scam had been identified when Eleanor went to the branch on 29 September, it still would have been too late to recover the money.

We were also satisfied the bank took reasonable recovery steps after Eleanor reported the scam. It sought a recall of the later payment within hours and later made recovery requests about the earlier transfers. No funds were recovered.