Skip to main content

Category: General

What claims can PSPs expect following the introduction of the APP fraud compulsory reimbursement requirement?

The new APP fraud reimbursement requirement comes into force on 7 October 2024. The change potentially is seismic financially as well as practically; indeed, your role may be directly affected by the changes.

Our recent article provided an overview of the new rules and who may be affected by their implementation. In this article we seek to help you prepare for some of the claims that Payment Service Providers (“PSPs”) may face in light of the changes, offering suggestions and solutions for managing those claims.

An App-raisal of the new APP rules

On 7 October 2024 the Payment Systems Regulator’s (“PSR”) proposal for new reimbursement rules relating to Authorised Push Payment (“APP”) fraud (often referred to as “scams”) comes into force.

This article explores the background as to why these changes were needed, an overview of what they are and how they seek to improve detection and prevention of fraud and increase protection for customers of banks and other Payment Service Providers (“PSPs”).

When is an APP scam not an APP scam?

The Payment Systems Regulator (“PSR”) has published final guidance [1] to support Payment Service Providers (“PSPs”) in assessing whether an Authorised Push Payment (“APP”) scam claim raised by a consumer should be dealt with as an APP scam under the Faster Payments or CHAPS reimbursement rules or as a private civil dispute between the consumer and recipient of the payment.

Claims which relate to a civil dispute are not reimbursable under the reimbursement requirement. The guidance sets out factors that PSPs should consider when assessing whether a claim solely relates to a civil dispute and therefore does not fall within the requirement to reimburse.

MLROs in Housing Associations: Is it a role in its own right or just a badge?

The Money Laundering Regulations 2017

The Money Laundering Regulations 2017 (‘the Regulations’) set out what regulated firms must do in order to comply with their AML obligations. These include requirements in relation to client due diligence; risk assessments; policies, controls and procedures; and staff training. It also includes the requirement to have a Money Laundering Reporting Officer and, if appropriate, a Money Laundering Compliance Officer; with the identity of the post-holders being notified to the relevant regulator within 14 days.

The FOS and interpretation of Gross Negligence

What’s occurring?

With increasing numbers of people finding themselves a victim of Authorised Push Payment fraud (“APP”), the impact is increasingly being felt by both consumers and Payment Service Providers (“PSPs”). APP is the largest type of fraud in the UK both by victim and value of losses. It is also exponentially growing and showing no signs of stopping.

Disclosure of SARs in civil proceedings: What is the position?

The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“POCA”) requires banks and other businesses in the regulated sector to report knowledge or suspicion of money laundering to the National Crime Agency (“NCA”) (indeed it is an offence not to make a required disclosure without reasonable excuse). These reports are commonly known as Suspicious Activity Reports (“SARs”). Separately, any person can seek a defence against committing a money laundering offence by making an authorised disclosure to the NCA (known as ‘Defence Against Money Laundering’ (“DAMLs”). [1]

The SARs regime is at the heart of the UK’s fight against money laundering and terrorist financing with nearly one million SARs submitted per year. Crucially, SARs are highly confidential, and this is critical to the effective operation of the reporting regime. There may be limited situations which call for the disclosure of SARs such as in private civil proceedings, but which is the overriding obligation – the obligation of confidentiality or disclosure?

The Court’s APP-roach to the Retrieval Duty

This article will look at the recent case of CCP Graduate School Ltd v National Westminster Bank PLC & Anor [2024] EWHC and the questions that arise from that judgment including whether an obligation exists on banks to pursue the recovery of funds following an authorised push payment fraud i.e. the “retrieval duty”.

How good is your bank?

A new report sheds light on how banks are handling authorised push payment (APP) scams and reimbursing victims. This is the first-ever comprehensive data collection on APP scams, allowing consumers to compare how different banks performed.