The Massachusetts Court of Appeal closed the door in an extraordinary legal battle in which agent Lorenko Garcia sought to carry Santander Bank responsible for a $ 751,000 loss in an encrypted fraud.
According to Court rulingThe Santander customer’s agreement or the Massachusetts Law requires the bank to prohibit or investigate the transactions that have been evaluated with customers, even when these transfers are linked to clear fraud.
Santander was wiped after the customer loses 751 thousand dollars for the encrypted fraud.
In the period from December 2021 to January 2022, Garcia performed two purchass of the discount card and seven wire transportation from his examination accounts and savings accounts to the Commercial Bank in Metropolitan in New York.
Money was later used to buy crypto currency via Crypto.com and supposed trading platform called Coinegg. However, Garcia later realized that Coinegg was a fraud, which led to a loss of $ 751,000.
Feeding a lawsuit against Santander to violate the contract, neglecting distortion, and violating the Consumer Protection Law in Massachusetts. The argument was that the bank should have discovered and stopped the highly dangerous transactions.
However, the Appeals Committee rejected all Jarisia’s claims. He referred to the Santander client’s agreement, which states that the bank may act when fraud suspected – but is not obligated to do so. The court also confirmed that Massachusetts organizers have not imposed any comprehensive requirements for banks to monitor or prevent all suspicious transactions.
Garcia also cited a language on Santander on the Santander website, which is the bank to “call the customer” about the doubtful activity. However, the court found that this marketing language was not a binding legal duty.
It is very important that Garcia personally authorized every transfer. He did not raise concerns with the bank until the money disappeared.
Although the court’s decision bears a limited previous weight, it provides a clear message: banks are not financial guardians against coding losses, especially when customer -based transactions.
With encryption fraud in the rise and tightening of organizational scrutiny, financial institutions are increasingly tending to the accurate conditions of their customer agreements to study themselves from responsibility.
As indicates this case, individuals who transfer large sums to speculative digital assets must make their diligence and implement personal guarantees against fraud.
Garcia filed the original complaint in October 2022. After two years of legal decline-and decisions taken by both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal in favor of Santander-his efforts ended to restore his missing wealth with disappointment.
The coding fraud operation is exploded 6,499 % in 2025, as the organizers tighten a grip on Web3 projects
This ruling is in particular, as encryption fraud is high, and organizers increase the scrutiny of digital assets.
The data indicates that Crypto Rug wipes approximately $ 6 billion in the first quarter of 2025, an increase of 6500 % from only 90 million dollars in the previous year.
Web3 projects have lost approximately $ 6 billion from carpets since the beginning of 2025, an increase of 6499 % over 90 million dollars registered during the same period last year, according to the new DAPPRADAR a report.
Sarah Gerghames, the Blockchain locality in DAPPRADAR, is also noticed that one case represents most of the damage, as 92 % of the amount is “linked to a talisman accident”, which she describes as “one of the largest individual fraud registered in recent years.”
Cryptopolitan Academy: soon – a new way to earn a negative income with Defi in 2025. Learn more
