After phishing, smishing or another unauthorised payment, you often hear from the bank surprisingly quickly why it does not want to reimburse you: gross negligence, your own fault, no entitlement. That is one position. Whether it holds up legally is another matter.
In banking and payment services law, it is not standard letters that matter, but the specific sequence of events. What exactly happened? Which data were disclosed? Which payment transactions were initiated? Which security procedures were in place? And what can be derived from this legally? That is precisely what must be examined—not the bank’s boilerplate text.
I represent clients in particular in cases involving unauthorised payments, card misuse, online banking fraud and disputes with banks or payment service providers regarding reimbursement claims. What matters is not what is routinely alleged, but what the law, case law and the individual circumstances actually support.
Typical Cases
Phishing and smishing
Many cases begin with a deceptively genuine message, a phone call or a fake input screen. This is usually followed by the familiar pattern: the money is gone, the bank refuses, and the allegation of gross negligence is raised more quickly than a proper legal review is carried out.
I review whether the refusal to reimburse is legally sustainable, which objections by the bank actually hold up, and which claims exist against the bank or the payment service provider.
Unauthorised payments
Not every debited payment can legally be attributed to the account holder. What is decisive is whether a payment transaction was authorised and whether the requirements for customer liability are met in the specific case at all.
I review whether unauthorised payments have occurred, which repayment claims exist, and how the prospects of success should realistically be assessed.
Card misuse and online banking fraud
Whether credit card, debit card or online banking: as soon as third parties gain access to payment instruments or security features, significant damage often occurs within a very short time. The legal assessment then depends on details—not on the mere assertion that the customer “somehow behaved incorrectly”.
I review which transactions can be challenged legally, which objections are to be expected, and which course of action is advisable.
What matters in these cases
Especially in disputes with banks, there is often an attempt to dispose of the matter early on with standardised objections. That only works if those objections are accepted without scrutiny. Whether gross negligence exists, whether a payment was authorised, and who bears which burden of presentation and proof cannot be answered seriously with a single sentence from the legal department.
For this reason, I examine not only whether a claim exists in principle, but also how robust the evidence is, which arguments the other side is likely to raise, and which approach makes sense legally and economically.
What sets me apart in banking law
At first glance, these cases often appear technical. In reality, however, they almost always come down to the same questions: Who bears the risk? What can be proven legally? And is it worth taking action against the bank’s refusal?
As an attorney and graduate economist, I consider not only the legal side but also the economic effort involved. Not every set of proceedings makes sense. But not every refusal by the bank should be treated as a law of nature, either.
If you would like to know whether the bank’s position holds up in your case and which steps are advisable, please briefly describe what happened to me.
Briefly describe what this is about.
☎️ 05204 – 9249884 · info@anwaltskanzlei-nieweg.de
Callback usually on the same business day.
