AUTHORISED PUSH PAYMENT FRAUD: A SHIFTING LANDSCAPE
Authorised push payment (APP) fraud remains an issue, and the existing reimbursement regime has its limits. The result is that victims of APP fraud continue to seek to recoup their losses through the courts via increasingly creative means. As a result, the current landscape regarding the liability banks and payment services providers face may be shifting further.
Clarification of the duty
The Quincecare duty, established in the case of Barclays Bank Plc v. Quincecare Ltd, provides that, when a bank or other payment services provider receives a payment instruction, it has a duty not to carry out the instruction if it has been ‘put on inquiry’ in the sense of having reasonable grounds to believe the instruction is an attempt to defraud the customer.
The legal basis for the Quincecare duty was both clarified and narrowed by the Supreme Court in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc.
In this case, Dr and Mrs Philipp were persuaded by a fraudster claiming to be working for the Financial Conduct Authority in conjunction with the National Crime Agency to move a sum of money to purportedly ‘safe accounts’. The Philipps gave two sets of instructions to Barclays Bank for payments from Mrs Philipp’s current account to a United Arab Emirates bank account. On both occasions, the bank phoned Mrs Philipp to verify the requests. It was only on the third transfer request that Mrs Philipp was informed that the payment had been blocked by the bank pending a review.
Jul-Sep 2026 issue
Greenberg Traurig, LLP