That depends on who gets defrauded (with the exception of APP scams). Whilst the bank likes to always insist it’s the customer who is always the victim, it’s just as often the bank, and that’s when it becomes their money not the customer’s.
1 Like
So say a vulnerable customer responds to a fraudster purporting to be their bank. As part of the scam they convince the vulnerable customer to purchase crypto which they then take control of.
AIUI - in most cases it’d be the customer’s bank who’d pick up the pieces when the customer reported it to them. That’s their money, surely?
I would argue that the vulnerable customer should be the exception to the general allowance and shouldn’t be allowed to access it, whereas the “normal” for lack of a better word customer, should be told to eat shit when they lose money to a crypto scam
Eat shit, eloquently put 
It’s a difficult one, I’m sure we’d want to have our backs covered if we were in that position. That said, I’ve heard pieces criticising Revolut when the client installed any desk - I find it mad that someone would do that - but it all depends on your IT skills which can vary even outside vulnerable groups.
1 Like
I think I remember seeing it in the FCA regulations 
1 Like