April, 2022
|
StopSIMCrime Summit

James Chen v Bank of America

12/11/2019

**Bank of America allowed hackers to steal ** $514,668 by illegally authorizing wire transfers from and to his account and for authorizing a new account application under his name without his authorization.

09/16/20 Update Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald dismissed this case with prejudice. Each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. Case Terminated.

9/9 19 Update Defendants Bank of America and Gemini Trust Company filed for motion to dismiss, effectively denying all allegations.

Status Update as of 08/09/19 Plaintiff James Chen First Amended Complaint was filed.

Claims in
James Chen v Bank of America
Violation of Electronic Funds Transfer Act
  1. Under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act 15 U.S. Code § 1601, Congress finds that economic stabilization would be enhanced and the competition among the various financial institutions and other firms engaged in the extension of consumer credit would be strengthened by the informed use of credit.
  2. Under 15 U.S. Code § 1693, Congress finds that the use of electronic systems to transfer funds provides the potential for substantial benefits to consumers. However, due to the unique characteristics of such systems, the application of existing consumer protection legislation is unclear, leaving the rights and liabilities of consumers, financial institutions, and intermediaries in electronic fund transfers undefined.
Violation of Unfair Business Practices Under Business & Professions Code

Section 17200 et. seq. of the California Business & Professions Code (BPC) defines “unfair competition” in three categories: “Unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act[s] or practice[s]”; “Unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising”; and Violations of the provisions of California law starting at § 17500 of the BPC.

Violation of California Commercial Code

Under COM § 11201, “security procedure” means a procedure established by agreement of a customer and a receiving bank for the purpose of (i) verifying that a payment order or communication amending or canceling a payment order is that of the customer, or (ii) detecting error in the transmission or the content of the payment order or communication. A security procedure may require the use of algorithms or other codes, identifying words or numbers, encryption, callback procedures, or similar security devices. Comparison of a signature on a payment order or communication with an authorized specimen signature of the customer is not by itself a security procedure.

Cases

See all Cases
Prev
|
Next

 Support us

Let’s make them stop! Make a donation for public service announcements, legal actions, and creating legislation that to make it impractical for the mobile carriers to continue to give your mobile service to criminals.