Man loses C&P Phantom Withdrawl case

[Peter Fairbrother]

Nicholas Bohm wrote:
> Roland Perry wrote:
>> http://www.finextra.com/fullstory.asp?id=20102 and judgement at:
>> http://www.alikelman.com/jobhbos.pdf
> 
> For those disinclined to read the whole, the essence is at paragraph 20:
> 
> "20.	I do not accept the Claimant’s proposition that each step in the
> process has to be expressly demonstrated. I do think that the absence of
> a history of successful fraudulent attacks on online chip and PIN
> transactions, and the absence of any evidence of systems failure, as
> showing that these were transactions that can be taken at face value,
> (both of which are supported by the evidence of Mr Baker and Mr Brown),
> are important pieces of evidence from which it is open to the court to
> draw the inference that these were transactions that took place using Mr
> Job’s card and his PIN. That is a conclusion that I do reach in this case."

The judge seemed to assume that there was no "history of successful 
fraudulent attacks" - from other comment, especially Steven Murdoch's 
testimony, it seems that there is an absence of evidence, rather than an 
evidence of absence,

A pity no-one seems to have thought to ask the bank how often they had 
previously refunded customers in similar circumstances ...

   ... anecdotally, most people have a story about card fraud happening 
either to themselves or to someone close to them.


-- Peter Fairbrother