The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A top ZNS TV anchor has won damages from Scotiabank (Bahamas) after it refused to reimburse $27,500 in “unauthorised transactions” that were taken from her account.

Macushla Pinder, who anchors the state-owned broadcaster’s weekday Bahamas Tonight programme at 7pm, saw the Supreme Court uphold her claim for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against the Canadian-owned commercial bank relating to a series of withdrawals from her account that took place in 2015 and 2016.

Scotiabank (Bahamas) defended its decision not to repay Mrs Pinder on the basis that the correct Personal Identification Number (PIN) for her debit card was used in all the transactions, despite the ZNS anchor asserting she was in the US with her family when a number of withdrawals were made from local automated banking machines (ABMs).

She also denied knowing any of the persons captured on surveillance cameras at Rubis’ Wulff Road and Jerome Avenue service station using the ABM at the time her card was recorded as being used. The bank, though, argued that Mrs Pinder’s admission that she had misplaced her card showed she was not being careful with her personal financial security.

And it also asserted that Mrs Pinder had breached the personal financial services agreement (PFSA) that governed her relationship with Scotiabank (Bahamas), and the use of her account, by not reporting the debit card as missing within the timeframe stipulated.

However, Supreme Court justice Keith Thompson, in an April 20, 2021, ruling found that Mrs Pinder was unable to monitor transactions on her account because the bank had never issued financial statements to her.

And he also ruled that Scotiabank (Bahamas), by halting the updating of the passbook that she used to oversee the account without any notice, had prevented her from detecting and reporting the “unauthorised transactions” in a timely manner.

Justice Thompson, who branded Scotiabank (Bahamas) as “seriously negligent” for allowing further withdrawals to occur even after Mrs Pinder had reported them, made no findings as to how the rogue withdrawals occurred.

However, the evidence contained in the judgment suggests Mrs Pinder and her debit card fell victim to a form of fraud known as “skimming”, where criminals run it through a device that captures all the information contained on the card’s magnetic strip. They are then able to “clone” the card, and start using it to withdraw funds from the victim’s account.

While damages have yet to be assessed, Justice Thompson ordered Scotiabank (Bahamas) to repay the $27,500 taken from Mrs Pinder’s account. The ZNS anchor, though, declined to comment when contacted by Tribune Business on the basis that the bank can appeal the verdict.

Justice Thompson’s verdict, though, disclosed that Mrs Pinder first realised something was amiss when she went to Scotiabank (Bahamas) Palmdale branch on February 23, 2016, to make an over-the-counter withdrawal of money.

Upon receiving a financial statement on her account from the teller, she noticed “there were numerous unauthorised debits” that had taken place on the account between September 30, 2015, and February 19, 2016. Each withdrawal was for $1,000, and on occasion there had been two withdrawals on the same day from New Providence-based ABMs, adding up to a total $17,500.

However, four withdrawals between December 23, 2015, and December 30, 2015, had taken place while she was in the US. After informing Scotiabank (Bahamas), she was shown photos of persons purportedly using her bank card at various ABM machines but could not identify anyone.

However, further $1,000 debits from a “perplexed” Mrs Pinder’s account took place between February 20, 2016, and November 8, 2016. This was despite her having received a new debit card and PIN number when the first set of transactions occurred.

After giving the Royal Bahamas Police Force permission to launch an investigation, she alleged: “Assistant Superintendent Barett said at his office that there is a possibility that my card had been skimmed; that a group of men had recently been taken into custody for a similar crime and that hopefully one of the suspects would be responsible for my matter.”

That was the end of Mrs Pinder’s involvement with the police. She remained, though, seriously unimpressed with Scotiabank (Bahamas), describing it as “mind boggling” that several withdrawals occurred while she was in the US./

“Having stated my case to Christie Strachan on February 23,” she wrote, “it was implied by another employee that it really didn’t make sense to launch an investigation into the matter considering the cost to review the surveillance cameras. Mind blowing!”

However, Scotiabank (Bahamas) refused to reimburse the $27,500 taken from the account on the basis that the correct PIN had been used for each transaction, and that the ZNS anchor was in breach of their agreement by not reporting the missing card within the time required.

Sherelle Minnis, Scotiabank (Bahamas) assistant manager of services and support, alleged: “The bank did not reimburse Mrs Pinder for the sums that she alleged was withdrawn from her account without her authorisation because the correct PIN was used in all instances.

“It was the bank’s view that based on the conduct of the transactions on Mrs Pinder’s account, reimbursement was not warranted. Additionally, it appeared that Mrs Pinder was not taking all diligent steps to safeguard the card and the PIN. The fact that she could not locate the card suggested that she may not have been as careful with its safety and storage as possible.”

Scotiabank (Bahamas) argued that Mrs Pinder was liable for the loss because she did not report the unauthorised withdrawal within the 30 days required by their account agreement, and therefore refused to reimburse her- citing this and the fact the correct PIN was used at all times for its justification.

Edward Smith, a former Royal Bahamas Police Force officer, who had responsibility for corporate services and investigations at Scotiabank (Bahamas), also asserted that the withdrawals “could not have been prevented by the bank”.

Justice Thompson, in his verdict, disagreed with the bank’s attorney, Raynard Rigby, that there was no duty in law or its agreement with Mrs Pinder that required it to monitor her account. This, he found, was contradicted by the Financial Transactions Reporting Act.

And he also ruled that Scotiabank (Bahamas) decision to stop updating Mrs Pinder’s passbook, without notifying her, left her unable to monitor the account and detect the unauthorised transactions. This was despite the two sides’ agreement requiring that notification be given.

“The bank, having taken away the updating of the pass book and no statements having been provided to the plaintiff, must necessarily accept responsibility for the plaintiff not being aware of the unauthorised transactions on her account,” Justice Thompson ruled.

“In this instant case, the plaintiff notified the defendant as soon as she became aware that funds were being withdrawn from her account. What is even more egregious is that even after notifying the defendant, further transactions took place. Therefore, in my view it is the defendant [Scotiabank] who was seriously negligent.”