The Frankfurt Regional Court (Landgericht Frankfurt am Main) recently dealt with an unusual case, which ended early when Commerzbank AG paid the full amount claimed. The claimant is a German retiree who has lived in South Africa for many years. He held an account with Commerzbank AG, which is headquartered in Frankfurt am Main.

He regularly transferred four-figure sums from this account to an account in his own name in South Africa. There were no other transactions. In June 2021, Commerzbank AG received a letter bearing a scanned signature that resembled the claimant’s. The letterhead, however, showed an e-mail address and mobile number that did not match the contact details in the claimant’s customer file.

The letter asked the bank to transfer the entire balance to an account in Indonesia. It read:

„As already agreed, I hereby grant you my written authorisation for the unconditional termination of my account and all associated banking services. I am temporarily relocating […]. Please transfer my available balance to my company account…“ (followed by bank details in Indonesia).

According to the bank, the employee compared the signature with the specimen signature on file. The differing contact details did not raise her suspicions, and neither did the phrase „as already agreed“, although she had never spoken to the customer in person or by phone. She carried out the transfer without applying the four-eyes principle, without checking the contact details against the customer file and without trying to reach the customer through the details on record.

The claimant only learned of the transfer when the execution confirmation arrived by post in South Africa. What followed was a process lasting several years. Out-of-court correspondence with Commerzbank AG brought no result, and neither the public prosecutor’s office nor the ombudsman for private banks was able to help.

The customer then instructed attorney Benjamin Hasan, a Frankfurt-based certified specialist in banking law. He first gave Commerzbank AG the opportunity to resolve the matter out of court, but the bank initially declined and said little about the facts. Only after the action was filed did Commerzbank AG comment in more detail, while still asking the court to dismiss the claim.

Ongoing monitoring is a core duty

„Business relationships change over time. The duty of ongoing monitoring is meant to identify risk indicators that only emerge during the relationship,“ says Benjamin Hasan. „In our view, the bank should have examined the alleged termination carefully, consulted the customer file and, if the real customer could not be reached, considered filing a suspicious activity report.“

Persistence pays off

The court initially considered obtaining a handwriting expert’s report to compare the signature on the letter with the claimant’s genuine signature. To avoid this, it proposed that Commerzbank AG pay 75% of the considerable amount claimed.

„We could not recommend this settlement to our client. A large part of his money would have been lost, along with the interest of 5 percentage points above the base rate accrued over the years,“ explains Hasan. „We were confident that an expert report would confirm that the signature was not his. Beyond that, we pointed out that even a genuine but scanned signature, used on a letterhead with entirely different contact details, would not make the instruction attributable to our client.“

Experience shows that lengthy evidence proceedings can be a considerable burden, particularly for older claimants. Hasan therefore made clear that, should the case go to a lengthy taking of evidence, his side would also examine more closely whether the bank had complied with its anti-money laundering due diligence obligations.

Shortly afterwards, and before the court ruled, Commerzbank AG paid the full amount claimed plus interest.

„Our client can now enjoy his retirement with his partner in South Africa without financial worries,“ says Hasan. „Cases like this show how important it is for banks to take warning signs seriously and to deal openly with mistakes. That protects customers and banks alike, and it spares everyone years of litigation.“

Experience you can rely on

Benjamin Hasan is a certified specialist lawyer for banking and capital markets law (Fachanwalt für Bank- und Kapitalmarktrecht). With more than ten years of experience as an attorney, he combines litigation experience with the perspective of a former bank manager. He advises clients facing unjustified measures by banks, financial services providers or payment institutions, and he also represents banks in defending or enforcing claims. Whether the case concerns substantial assets or household savings, and whether the other side is based in Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Malta, Cyprus or the UK, we represent our clients throughout Germany and across Europe. Media outlets such as n-tv, Zeit Online, Handelsblatt, Börsen-Zeitung and Immobilien Zeitung have reported on our work. Benefit from our experience gained in hundreds of court cases.

The content of this article is valid as at the date of its first publication. It is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and does not constitute legal advice. We recommend that you seek professional advice on your specific matter before acting on any information provided. For further information or advice, please contact Benjamin Hasan, Partner at the Frankfurt office, via telephone at +49 69 247 428 444 or by email at benjamin.hasan@kyprianou.com