Jordon Judge received a call on his phone in a Vancouver coffee shop, appearing to be from Scotiabank. However, the caller was actually a scammer who had manipulated the caller ID in a practice known as phone call “spoofing.” The fraudster claimed there were two suspicious charges on Judge’s Scotiabank Visa card, which he denied authorizing. Despite the caller assuring him that the charges would be blocked, Judge later discovered two significant unauthorized charges totaling nearly $20,000 on his credit card statement.
This incident marked the beginning of a frustrating ordeal for Judge as Scotiabank persisted in holding him responsible for the fraudulent charges. Credit card fraud is on the rise, with an increasing number of identity fraud cases involving compromised credit cards over the past three years, according to the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre.
The Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments reported that fraud-related complaints are the top issue they handle, with only e-transfers surpassing credit cards in fraud complaints. Under federal law, a person’s liability for unauthorized credit card transactions is generally limited to $50 unless the bank can demonstrate gross negligence on the customer’s part in safeguarding the card.
A cybersecurity expert emphasized the importance of financial institutions conducting thorough investigations and providing concrete evidence before holding customers accountable amid the growing complexity of fraud techniques. Scotiabank, however, declined an interview request and did not address written inquiries, instead issuing a brief statement urging customers to protect their personal information.
The scam involved the fraudster obtaining Judge’s birth date and mother’s maiden name, which he disclosed. When asked for a “one-time passcode,” Judge refused, citing the warning not to share the code with anyone and the assurance that Scotiabank would never request it. Despite the fraudster claiming to halt the charges, Judge later found the unauthorized transactions on his statement.
Judge’s efforts to dispute the charges with Scotiabank were met with rejection, with the bank asserting his liability without providing transparent evidence or explanations for their decision. Following media intervention, the university linked to one of the charges reimbursed Judge after conducting an investigation. Scotiabank eventually credited Judge’s account for the disputed amount, but failed to communicate the resolution directly to him.
While Judge eventually received compensation after persistent efforts, the case highlights the challenges individuals face in proving their innocence in fraud cases and the need for greater transparency and accountability from financial institutions in handling such situations.