- August 17, 2023
- Posted by: legaleseblogger
- Category: Related News
Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration
AI Legalese Decoder: Helping Consumers Navigate Complex Scams and Assess Banks’ Liability
Introduction:
As the complexity of scams continues to increase, consumers are finding themselves responsible for much of the due diligence. This article raises questions about the extent to which banks should be held liable in situations where consumers fall victim to sophisticated scams. In this doubled-length version of the original content, we will explore this issue further and discuss how AI Legalese Decoder can help consumers navigate these complex situations.
Increasing Complexity of Scams:
In our ever-evolving digital landscape, scams have become more intricate and convoluted. Consumers find themselves at the forefront of due diligence, often carrying out investigations independently. As scams grow in complexity, it becomes crucial for individuals to exercise caution and thoroughly investigate before engaging in financial transactions.
The Banks: Carrying Out Transactions Under False Pretenses:
Interestingly, this article suggests that banks often carry out transactions at the request of their customers, even when false pretenses may be involved. For example, customers might claim that funds are being transferred to their ASB account, when in reality, the destination might be quite different. This raises ethical questions regarding the banks’ responsibility in verifying the legitimacy of such transactions.
Consumer Accountability and Media Portrayal:
While one might argue that banks should assume some financial liability in these situations, it is important to also consider the issue of consumer accountability. Consumers must take an active role in investigating where they are sending large sums of money, particularly in these uncertain times. Therefore, it might be unfair to solely blame the banks and seek reimbursement without acknowledging the consumer’s own due diligence responsibilities.
The Role of AI Legalese Decoder:
AI Legalese Decoder can play a crucial role in helping consumers navigate these increasingly complex scams. By utilizing cutting-edge artificial intelligence and advanced algorithms, this tool can analyze and decode legal language within banking contracts and agreements. This ensures that consumers have a comprehensive understanding of their rights, responsibilities, and the potential liability of banks in scam-related situations.
By using AI Legalese Decoder, consumers can be better equipped to assess whether a bank should bear financial responsibility for their losses. This tool empowers individuals to make informed decisions, providing them with a comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies surrounding their transactions.
Conclusion:
As scams become more sophisticated, consumers must be vigilant and take responsibility for their due diligence. While it may be tempting to hold banks solely accountable for losses incurred, it is important to recognize the consumer’s role in investigating these transactions. AI Legalese Decoder serves as an invaluable resource in assisting consumers, allowing them to navigate the complexities of legal language and assess the financial liability of banks in scam-related situations more effectively. By combining consumer awareness and advanced AI technology, individuals can make informed decisions, ensuring their financial security in an ever-evolving landscape of scams.
Try Free Now: Legalese tool without registration
AI Legalese Decoder: Optimizing Legal Document Understanding and Analysis
Introduction
Legal documents and contracts often contain complex language and intricate wording, making them difficult to comprehend for individuals without a legal background. However, with the advent of AI-powered technologies, such as the AI Legalese Decoder, the process of understanding and analyzing legal documents becomes significantly easier. This article explores how the AI Legalese Decoder can assist individuals and businesses in navigating the complexities of legalese.
Section 1: The Challenge of Understanding Legalese
Legalese, also known as legal jargon, is a specialized language employed in legal documents and contracts. Its intricate sentence structures, archaic terminologies, and convoluted phrasings present a significant challenge for those unfamiliar with legal language. This hurdle often leads to misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and potential disregard of crucial legal provisions, which can have far-reaching consequences.
Section 2: The Role of AI Legalese Decoder in Simplifying Legal Language
The AI Legalese Decoder is a breakthrough AI-powered tool designed to simplify and decode legalese contained within legal documents. By utilizing advanced natural language processing algorithms and machine learning techniques, this tool enables users to seamlessly navigate through complex legal language, extracting its meaning and implications accurately.
Section 3: Doubling the Original Length – How AI Legalese Decoder Helps
Understanding Legal Provisions in Contracts:
Contracts are essential legal documents that stipulate the rights and obligations of involved parties. AI Legalese Decoder assists in comprehending these documents by breaking down convoluted sentences and explaining their meaning clause by clause. By doubling the original length of the content, the AI Legalese Decoder offers comprehensive insights about the contract’s enforceability, legal obligations, and potential risks.
Identifying Critical Terms and Conditions:
In legal documents, certain terms and conditions hold significant weight and can greatly impact the outcome of a contract or agreement. AI Legalese Decoder helps users identify these critical terms, providing in-depth explanations of their implications and legal consequences. The AI-powered tool’s ability to expand on such terms ensures transparency and helps users make more informed decisions.
Analyzing Legal Implications:
AI Legalese Decoder serves as a reliable legal analysis tool, highlighting potential risks, loopholes, and ambiguities in legal documents. By doubling the original content length, the tool delves deeper into the contextual implications of legal provisions, offering a clearer understanding of the document’s overall impact. This analysis empowers individuals and businesses to make well-informed decisions while mitigating legal risks.
Improving Accessibility and Efficiency:
With the AI Legalese Decoder, legal documents become more accessible to individuals who lack legal expertise. This increased accessibility boosts efficiency by saving time and effort that would otherwise be spent deciphering complex language. Doubling the original content length enhances the tool’s ability to provide comprehensive explanations, ensuring users can navigate legal documents effortlessly and accurately.
Conclusion
The AI Legalese Decoder is revolutionizing the way legal documents and contracts are understood and analyzed. Its ability to simplify complex legalese, provide comprehensive explanations, and identify critical terms and conditions greatly benefits individuals and businesses. By doubling the original content length, this AI-powered tool ensures a thorough understanding of legal provisions, supports informed decision-making, and reduces potential legal risks.
****** just grabbed a
Story time. A good while back, one of my customers I discussed with at length, 2/3 times, over 2 months, not to transfer funds to an inheritance scammer overseas.
I left notes on their file to be cautious of any international transfer requests, accompanying the 2 already on there. They had fallen for scams previously and they kept talking about a large inheritance they were getting from overseas. I explicitly told them it was fake and to contact the NZ police. I gave them details for free financial budgeting / advice services to speak with as an independent 3rd party.
I notified the fraud prevention team who put extra precautions in place and we disabled the ability for the customer to make international transfers without speaking to a staff member. Every single precaution possible was in place.
The customer made a large cash withdrawal for them, and when questioned at the bank, they told them they were buying a car.
When I next spoke to the customer, they very happily told me they were getting millions of dollars in inheritance, having transferred the withdrawn cash to pay the fees by western union. What more can you do to protect people.
It absolutely sucks that people are getting scammed but it needs to be an effort on both sides. I get banks need to do everything they can to stop scammers, especially because alot of customers are not financially savvy, but ultimately if you are transferring 100s of thousands of dollars to someone who cold called you that is 100% your fault. This article is a person who did a really dumb thing trying to pass the blame.
Banks have a lot of systems and processes in place to detect and aid in fraudulent transactions and phishing/smishing data.
IÔÇÖve seen first hand how one bank in particular has invested millions in systems and saving thousands of fraudulent transactions to the tune of multiples of millions of dollars.
ItÔÇÖs unfortunate that some shit stains can still outdo the processes in place. But if someone makes a valid transaction to an account where they believe itÔÇÖs genuine, and request the bank to proceed.
> BNZ is defending its refusal to pay out, saying it was **acting on the customersÔÇÖ express instructions** when it transferred the money to scammers and therefore has no liability for their loss.
What do you do?
Banks can only assume so much responsibility, and can only chase retrieval of funds as far as the law allows
I personally stopped 3 scam payments from going through during my time at the banks, had at least one that we could NOT convince the person not to send, and then almost fell for one myself where a customer was hacked and so they provided everything needed right down to correct ID. I think the scariest ones are these types where a legitimate transaction is highjackes into a different account number, almost impossible to stop/catch at first glance.
Very difficult one. The ‘evil’ me would just say, fuck them. If you’re stupid and gullible enough to fall for it, suffer.
But I’ve noticed with my own parents – they’re increasingly unsophisticated when it comes to making intelligent financial decisions. So much so that my sister and I have all but taken over the financial management of their money. She sits down with them every month, help them with a budget, bills and investment decisions. Leaving them to it would see them cleaned out in 2 years max. I nearly lost it with my dad once when he brought me a ‘financial opportunity’ he found at the back of a magazine. His reasoning, the magazine won’t allow ‘scams’ to be published in their pages. He doesn’t get how scummy all media are. If it’s in the ‘news’, it’s 100% true.
It’s sad seeing them become like this, increasingly unable to judge their own decisions, and being completely unaware of it. The parents becoming the children.
But one thing we cannot move them on, is that sweet Lotto hopium every week. The Big Win is just around the corner. For near on 25 years now.
That guy is a complete idiot and deserved losing every cent.
It’s cringe he complained to the media only to expose how stupid he is.
It’s frankly unprofessional the media used the title it did.
BNZ did nothing wrong. Never used BNZ but after this I have nothing but respect for them
It’s always a tough one as we will never know all the context. I feels really harsh to say but banks can’t and shouldn’t be liable for every single scam that comes through. From what I’ve seen banks are generally really good and the money banks have comes from somewhere, if banks paid out for every single scam and bad investment then anyone who has sensibly and carefully invested would also lose out.
The use of saying its “victim blaming” felt particularly nasty. It shouldn’t be used to gain support for their case in this way. There’s being a victim and there’s also being free of the consequences of your own choices. If you choose to put all your life savings into one thing well… Theres only so much that can be done.
I think there’s enough free, good financial advice around that people need to stop claiming complete ignorance.
Difficult question and very complex. On the one hand, the average person is often overwhelmed to reliably recognize spam, and often he is also greedy and actually hoping for big money, so the bank should do more education and offer better protection.
On the other hand, such scams only work if the customer participates and provides bank details, etc., and if you really secure this completely, then the customer is incapacitated, and that’s not a good solution either.
And even a kind of insurance does not help, because then there are people who try to cheat them.
The only way I see is more education and create awareness in the citizens that they have to be careful and not believe everything that is on the Internet. And that’s exactly what reports like this do.
If I shift the responsibility to the bank or politics, sooner or later they will force the citizen to only be able to transfer money with ID, confirmation by telephone, etc., which would overwhelm many citizens, especially older ones.
But unfortunately there is no really good solution, except to lock up the criminals for a very long time, but for that you have to catch them.
Something about fools and their money….
Can’t quite remember….
Did you know the account number is the only thing that matters? If you enter the payee name as ÔÇÿNigerian ScammerÔÇÖ or in this case ÔÇÿCitibank investmentÔÇÖ NZ banks do not match the account number with the name. In fact it completely ignores the name in the transaction. This is despite being warned by the banking ombudsman multiple times, and customers losing significant money every day as a result. ItÔÇÖs the root of the problem and scammers exploit it.
In 2023 it should be standard, really. A relatively easy technology to implement. But it is not because the banks are lazy. ItÔÇÖs not their money being lost.
UK banks have enabled payee data matching because they were taken to court (look up Quincecare Duty if interested)
When I worked at a bank years ago in the collections team (not like the nasty debt collectors, we were part of the bank’s customer service team and acted as a first safety net for potential hardship etc) I had a customer that I called who had been late paying their credit card. On my routine checks I saw that the customer hadn’t missed a payment for years, and their balance had been pretty steady until a couple months prior.
I asked him what had happened, and he didn’t give me a lot of information so when I had a look at transactions over the previous 2 months I saw multiple payments of up to $10k being paid to an overseas account. I asked him about these and he said he was paying the rent for his girlfriend who lived in another country.
Naturally, this was a huge red flag for me so I let him go and immediately called the fraud team. They investigated and found that it was a relationship scam, they called him and explained the situation to him, he said he wasn’t going to stop and that he enjoyed the companionship even if it was completely fake.
Not a whole lot more we could do, but hopefully this helps give some context as to what lengths banks will go to in order to prevent scams.
Side note: when he said that he enjoyed the companionship I genuinely felt for him. Must’ve been a lonely guy.
Imagine if youÔÇÖre building a house, foundations are down, builder needs $80k to stand up frames and the bank blocks the transaction because they think itÔÇÖs fraud. There would be outrage and people would say itÔÇÖs a conspiracy for banks to control consumer spending. The banks are not detectives or police, itÔÇÖs your responsibility to know when youÔÇÖre being scammed.
I think if the customerÔÇÖs account gets hacked, the responsibility kinda falls on the bank due to insufficient security followed by the banks. But in this situation, it is clearly on the customer as it was easily on customerÔÇÖs hand to realise Citi bank doesnÔÇÖt have much/any operations in NZ. Even if they are, the customer should read through PDS and other relevant documents prior to investing their money.
This is the same kinda people who blame RBNZ for raising OCR when they borrowed during low interest periods without doing any research.
As a bank shareholder through KiwiSaver I do not believe the banks should be responsible for this based on the circumstances in the above article.
Banks need to do better in many different aspects, advanced fraud detection is one, however when they do not detect this and the customer has kicked things off you canÔÇÖt just blame the bank.
To take it a bit off topic the really concerning larger trend here is that as a country everyone now wants to blame someone else or minimise their own actions, nobody takes personal responsibility any more.
RNZ recently did a really interesting Podcast on how BNZ has an entire team working on this. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0si0wsNYUKZ3DidXl6YRw7?si=XDBTIdhuSvyEglqm94f0FQ
In the UK, it’s normal to give someone the name on the bank account when you give them the account number. The payer then puts both pieces of information into their app when making a payment (/saving a payee), and if the name doesn’t match the account, the app informs the payer what the real name on the account is (even if it is at a different bank).
In this BNZ situation, I wouldn’t say the bank is responsible, but in order to minimise this sort of thing I think we should copy the UK system.
If the victim was given the name on the account, and it wasn’t “Citibank”, then something might have clicked. Or if the victim still told the bank that they were just transferring to themselves, then the name on the account not matching the customer name could have triggered the bank doing something.
It’s not fullproof, because the scammers will come up with a story why the name on the account is a random personal name, but that adds to the dodginess and it’s an extra check that will help a lot.
From someone which had their mother lose their house to a scammer (they sat i between her old house and new house purchase) and had a inch thick contract the police know who they are, the serious fraud office investigated but because their scam was so complex it was ÔÇ£legalÔÇØ.
We need protections against elder fraud like other countries.
I’m with the bank on both of these two specific cases, but I do feel the banks could and should do better. The article didn’t say but I am assuming the fraudsters were operating multiple accounts. If they’d transferred this to the same account number that had been involved in fraud previously then I think the bank is responsible due to not taking enough care.
I recently decided to move banks which involved transferring my life’s savings. I was disconcerted that transferring virtually all my money did not trigger any communication from Kiwibank. I do think that banks could and should do more to prevent fraud – but I also think that anyone who lies to the bank should be out on their own.
It would be easy to make a rule to always make contact when a customer transfers far more than normal, and to have that transaction take a few days just in case it needs to be reversed. Perhaps maintaining a list of trusted bank accounts that the bank allows the transfer to immediately, because their owners agree to reverse any transaction if it turns out to be fraudulent.
It’s not harsh imo, I actually find it ridiculous when people don’t take their fair share of blame and try to pass it on. I get it if they are elderly and fall victim to a scam, but there is really no excuse for tech savvy people to fall for these purely because of greed and lack of any due diligence. I respect that bank is refusing to pay them back, time for them to accept their mistake, take it on the chin and learn an expensive lesson.
Banks always seem to get blamed in the media when someone gets scammed, but it never makes it to the news on how many scams they stopped and the millions they managed to get back or stopped before they could reach the scammer’s hands. Banks can only protect people from themselves to an extent.
ItÔÇÖs complex and nuanced in individual cases.
I think banks have a responsibility to warn about scams and potential scams, and to query things that seem suspect, and to try to retrieve money as far as possible. Banks do at least try to do all those things.
The questions come in when itÔÇÖs argued that the bank should have recognised that the transaction was suspect.
Banks have been quite good at warning people about scams, same for the media, social media, and what not. Banks have millions of transactions. Unfortunately, people need to stop trusting every text they get and stop panicking for no reason.
​
Banks will never ask you for personal information or ask you to transfer money to other accounts
I agree, we need to take more ownership and more responsibility. Being scammed or ripped off is horrible and wouldnÔÇÖt wish it on my worst enemy but the Bank cannot fix every problem others cause.
TheyÔÇÖd stop/question transactions they suspect and people would get upset, they donÔÇÖt and people get upset.
We donÔÇÖt hear of the stories where the bank stops the transaction, customer gets upset and it actually turns out to be a scam. Only hear the negative ones
I want to see more stories and publicity around scams impacting folks, but hate how it always devolves into finger pointing between the victims.
I work in security and see so many scams, account takeovers, and fraud. ItÔÇÖs absolutely maddening how many people blatantly disregard advice and undermine security measures. But equally maddening when services like Lattitude make a mockery out of responsible data handling – thatÔÇÖs not over, it hasnÔÇÖt even begun yet. Much like store now, decrypt later for credentials – my bet is weÔÇÖll see a lot of identity fraud from that one later.
But thereÔÇÖs no winning side.
– You force additional security measures on folks, they revolt, get locked out, blame you for time losses.
– You provide the tools for users to choose to use, they blame you for not enforcing it when they get hit.
The reason these scams are so popular and successful is how easily humans are manipulated. The cards are stacked against us all too! The bad guys will openly share, discuss, collaborate to scam, hack, or deceive. The folks defending, or trying to work with consumers are often in closed cells within businesses, just scraping by with the mentality of ÔÇ£If our security is better than our neighbours, weÔÇÖre goodÔÇØ.
It sucks and everyone is losing.
TL;DR ESH and the bad guys still got the bag.
P.s if your business touches anything online, or even has an internet connection – talk to your insurer, you need cyber cover.
Feels like democratic system. Making mistake is also part of an individuals free will whether it is a good one or bad one. The more banks are liable for, banks would need to take more control in how we use bank services such more strict way. And dilemma starts.
Even the most idiot proof safety nets that the banks / regulators can come up with, will have even bigger idiots that will be able to outsmart them.