Court Case Over €100,000 Fraudulent Withdrawals from Atlas Bank

The case initiated by the Fond za zaštitu depozita (FZD) against Crnogorska komercijalna banka (CKB) is set to determine liability over fraudulent withdrawals totaling €100,000 made by individuals using fake identities. The trial, which revolves around claims of negligence in the bank’s identification process, is expected to conclude within a month.

Presiding Judge Itana Folić recently dismissed CKB’s request for additional IT expertise, which sought the original code and all working versions of the application used to exchange depositor information from Atlas Bank. She ruled that such measures would unnecessarily prolong the proceedings and concluded the main hearing. The expert analysis was intended to clarify what depositor information FZD provided to CKB and the preventive measures taken to avoid similar situations.

CKB contends that the only information they received included the names of the individuals and the amounts due for payment. In contrast, FZD asserts that the birthdates of the depositors were also included in the data shared. The bank claims that after the first unauthorized withdrawal, they had informed all relevant parties to verify this additional information, suggesting negligence on the part of their officials in verifying identities.

Following the bankruptcy of Atlas Bank, FZD acted in accordance with the Law on Deposit Protection, facilitating the payout of guaranteed deposits up to €50,000 through four banks: Hipotekarna, NLB, Société Générale, and CKB. The first unauthorized payout occurred in May 2019 at CKB’s Bar branch, followed by a second incident two months later in Herceg Novi. The fraud was uncovered when the legitimate depositor contested the withdrawal, leading to further scrutiny.

At Hipotekarna Bank, a similar incident had previously resulted in an out-of-court settlement with FZD. Forensic handwriting expert Mile Kontić reported that she could not ascertain if CKB officials acted with the necessary diligence during the payout process. She lacked information regarding their training on the characteristics of identification document protection. Kontić confirmed that the passports in question, belonging to individuals named Slađan Savić from Serbia and Lovro Gasparac from Croatia, were not authentic.

In the lawsuit, FZD points out that bank officials did not require specialized knowledge to inspect all pages of the passports. After the initial case in Bar, they had alerted all banks about the obligation to compare identification numbers. Despite this caution, a similar incident occurred shortly thereafter in Herceg Novi. Subsequent checks revealed discrepancies in the perforated numbers on the passports, raising concerns about the bank’s responsibility in these cases.

FZD argues that the repeated incidents indicate heightened responsibility on the bank’s part, especially after being notified of the lapses in Bar. CKB maintains that they acted with a prescribed level of diligence, emphasizing that they verified the passports and the information received from FZD before making the payouts. They assert that the attention required from banking staff is governed by the Law on Payment Transactions, which mandates a standard level of care. CKB claims that their officials acted responsibly in both cases, questioning the adequacy of the database managed by FZD and whether all necessary measures were taken to prevent such occurrences.