/regulation & compliance

News and resources on regulation, compliance, legal and governance issues for banks and fintechs.

Discussion
Revolut sees bumper revenue growth in 2023
A Finextra Member

A Finextra member

  Turnover is vanity, Profit sanity, Cash flow reality.
PSR enforces "step-change" in reimbursement rules for APP fraud victims
Ketharaman Swaminathan

Ketharaman Swaminathan

  @Finextra Member @ 10:37 +1. That's what Zelle has done in USA: Changed an otherwise irrevocable method of payment to revocable in the event of APP Scam. Makes sense. I see no reason why bank shareholders should pay the price for negligence of payors and / or populist Drunk Under Lamp Post regulation by government trying to curry favor with vote bank. 
PSR enforces "step-change" in reimbursement rules for APP fraud victims
Ketharaman Swaminathan

Ketharaman Swaminathan

  Banks will thank regulators / PSR for giving them the chance to delay payments and earn float income under the pretense that they're "carrying out extra due diligence on the authenticity of the payment". PayPal, Visa and MasterCard will thank regulators / PSR for giving banks the opportunity to deflect ecommerce payments from A2A to PayPal and credit card modes under the pretense that PayPal and credit card provide greater scam / fraud protection, as Santander has already started doing (Source: Finextra).  Like most Drunk Under Lamp Post regulation, this one is also likely to have unintended - but highly predictable - consequences that will vitiate the basic purpose of the regulation.
PSR enforces "step-change" in reimbursement rules for APP fraud victims
A Finextra Member

A Finextra member

  The rule should be that the "finality of payment" rule is revoked for APP fraud and monies are returned to payer. Why should the banks take the blow if the monies still are on fraudster´s or the goal-keeper´s accounts? Banks should take the compensation only if the monies cannot be charged back all the way. The practice that banks pay up incentivise fraudsters to keep up the game. It is like a burglar defending the action by that "the stolen goods are being compensated by the home insurance anyway and therefore no victims". Furthermore there needs to be a deductible.