A British High Court has ruled that Santander Bank is not legally liable after a retired customer lost £750,000 in a cryptocurrency scam, reaffirming that financial institutions are not responsible for authorised transactions, even when carried out under fraudulent pretences.
The case, which has reignited debate over accountability in an increasingly digital financial landscape, involved a former aerospace engineer who was tricked into transferring large sums of money to what he believed were legitimate crypto investment platforms.
Over the course of several weeks, he made numerous payments from his Santander account, only to discover later that the funds had been diverted to accounts controlled by scammers.
The victim argued that the bank should have identified and flagged the unusual activity, claiming Santander had a duty of care to intervene and prevent such substantial losses. He insisted the pattern of transactions should have raised red flags.
However, the High Court found in favour of the bank. The judge ruled that Santander had complied with the required procedures and that it was under no legal obligation to block the payments.
Crucially, because the transactions were authorised by the account holder—even though he had been deceived—the bank could not be held accountable.
This decision reflects an emerging legal trend in the UK: unless there is a demonstrable breach of duty or evidence of gross negligence, courts are reluctant to hold banks responsible for authorised push payment (APP) fraud.
As cryptocurrency scams become increasingly sophisticated, fraudsters continue to exploit the vulnerabilities of individuals unfamiliar with the crypto space.
The victim in this case was reportedly drawn in by the promise of high returns—an all-too-common tactic among online fraudsters.
In response to the rising number of crypto-related scams, Santander has implemented new safeguards. These include imposing strict limits on transfers to crypto exchanges—capping transactions at £1,000 each and £3,000 across a 30-day period. The bank is also developing systems to block real-time payments to certain high-risk platforms.
Despite these protective measures, the court’s ruling underscores a critical reality: once a customer authorises a payment, even if manipulated by fraud, the legal responsibility generally rests with the individual.
This case serves as a sobering reminder of the risks associated with the digital finance world, where transactions are swift, irreversible, and often unregulated. As scams continue to evolve, consumers are urged to remain vigilant.
For those considering crypto investments, the advice is simple but vital: scrutinise every opportunity, question unrealistic promises, and verify recipient details thoroughly. In today’s digital economy, a moment’s trust can lead to a devastating loss—and the courts may not provide a remedy.
