Home » Technology » Scammed by Fake Microsoft Technician: Man Loses €9,000 and His Lawsuit Against BNP Paribas

Scammed by Fake Microsoft Technician: Man Loses €9,000 and His Lawsuit Against BNP Paribas

Photo of author

By Harper Westfield

Scammed by Fake Microsoft Technician: Man Loses €9,000 and His Lawsuit Against BNP Paribas

Photo of author

By Harper Westfield

Imagine finding yourself suddenly stripped of €9,000 due to a cunning scam involving a fake tech support call. Now, picture seeking justice and compensation, only to be told that the bank isn’t obligated to refund your money. This was the harsh reality for a BNP Paribas client after falling victim to a sophisticated fraud scheme, which the Paris Court of Appeal recently ruled on, affirming that the bank had no legal obligation to reimburse the stolen funds.

The Deceptive Scheme That Started It All

In late June 2020, a man claiming to be a Microsoft technician contacted Mr. M multiple times, convincing him that his computer was infected with a Trojan virus. To fix the alleged issue, the so-called technician advised Mr. M to install TeamViewer, a legitimate remote access tool that unfortunately can be exploited for malicious purposes. Mr. M complied, unwittingly setting the stage for the fraud.

Over several days, the fraudster freely navigated Mr. M’s computer, accessing personal files and obtaining sensitive banking details, including photographs of his ID card, credit card information, and even his date and birth place. On July 3, the scammer went a step further by using Mr. M’s keyboard to type in his BNP Paribas card number. Mr. M, still believing he was dealing with a genuine technician, remained unaware of the deceit.

Digital Key Misuse in a Flash

On July 16, the scammer shifted his focus to the bank account. Using the credentials harvested from Mr. M’s computer, he logged into the online banking system and began the process of transferring Mr. M’s BNP digital key to his own device. This digital key, a security feature of the bank, sends a confirmation code via SMS to the client for each significant transaction.

See also  Google Chrome Update: 3 New Hidden Features You Need to Know!

Within just twenty minutes, the scammer had transferred the digital key to his phone, added a fictitious beneficiary, and authorized a transfer using the newly acquired digital key. The funds began moving: €3,000 on July 17, another €3,000 on July 20, and the final €3,000 on July 22, totaling €9,000.

It wasn’t until July 25 that BNP Paribas alerted Mr. M to suspicious activity regarding a new beneficiary. He immediately blocked his account and filed another complaint. However, by that time, the €9,000 had already been siphoned off, and no action could recover the lost funds.

Legal Complexities and the Concept of “Gross Negligence”

Distraught, Mr. M sought legal recourse, demanding reimbursement of the €9,000 and an additional €10,000 for damages. However, in January 2024, the Paris Judicial Court denied his claims. Persisting, Mr. M appealed, but on February 4, 2026, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the initial verdict.

The court focused on whether Mr. M had exercised sufficient caution. Under Article L. 133-19 of the Monetary and Financial Code, banks are not required to reimburse losses if the client has shown “gross negligence.” The court found that Mr. M had indeed been grossly negligent by allowing an unknown individual complete access to his computer for over two weeks, sharing confidential data, and transmitting a banking activation code via SMS.

In a contrasting case at the Angers Court of Appeal, a victim of a similar scam involving a fake adviser from Crédit Agricole was not found to have been grossly negligent, and the bank was ordered to reimburse over €11,000.

In Mr. M’s case, BNP Paribas was deemed to have made no technical errors; its security systems functioned as intended. The bank expressed regret over the circumstances of the scam but maintained its stance of non-liability. Ultimately, the court sided with this view, leaving Mr. M not only without his €9,000 but also liable for the court costs, while BNP Paribas incurred no additional financial penalty.

See also  Back to School 2025: Grab These New Microsoft 365 & Windows Deals!

Similar Posts

Rate this post
Share this :

Leave a Comment