Defrauded man wants his R1.6m from bank
DETAILS of how a doctor fell prey to fraudsters who withdrew and squandered more than R1.6 million from a fraudulent Nedbank bank account into which the money was paid – part of a purchase price towards a house – have emerged in court as the bank steadfastly refuses to refund him.
Dr Mohammed Nalla turned to the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, to demand the money back from Nedbank. He initially paid R2.8m into the account, but part of the money was later paid back to him by the bank.
Nalla claimed that he had lost more than R1.6m within days – all because Nedbank apparently failed to put checks and balances in place when they opened the fraudulent bank account for the account holder, who is said to be part of the scam. The fraud was discovered three days later and reported to Nedbank.
The bank said that it then froze the account and “promptly” paid R1 165 756 which was still in the account back to Nalla “to mitigate his losses”.
However, details of the account provided to court showed that the account was still active for about two days after Nedbank was said to have been alerted about the fraud and before Nalla was reimbursed with what was left in the account.
According to evidence, Nalla paid R2.8m on June 11, 2020 into the fraudulent account, which belonged to a Ms Shabalala. Nedbank admitted that Shabalala received this amount in her Nedbank Pay as You Use account the following day. The bank was told about the fraud on June 15, 2020. Yet according to the account history, vast amounts were withdrawn two days later and a smaller amount on the third day.
Advocate Nazeer Cassim, SC, appearing for Nalla, argued that in Nedbank's own version it had a duty of care from the time of the notification of the fraud and payments made after June 15 were wrongful and negligent.
Nalla, meanwhile, explained that he had no idea the money was paid into a fraudulent bank account.
He received an email that he had to pay the money into the trust account of a law firm for a property he had bought. As he expected this correspondence, he paid the money believing that all was in order. He never dreamt it would be a Pay as You Use account held by one Tshabalala.
His case is that there was no genuine verification by Nedbank of Tshabalala when the account was opened – no home address, no payslips or other documents required under Fica.
While Nalla is demanding that Nedbank pay him back the slightly more than R1.635m which the fraudsters have spent, the bank denies any liability. It said it did fulfil its duty of reasonable care when it opened the account on May 27, 2020 and it verified her identity details as a prospective client.
According to the bank, Tshabalala presented her original ID to them, which was certified. The bank said the Fica Act does not require a client of the bank to produce proof of address for an application for a Pay as You Use account. It, however, did establish that she was a labourer at Pick n Pay, the bank said.
In his argument to court yesterday, advocate Cassim maintained that Nedbank was negligent, did not adhere to Fica and was thus liable to pay Nalla.
Judgment was reserved.