Hackers used phishing emails to break into a Virginia bank in two separate cyber intrusions over an eight-month period, making off with more than $2.4 million total. Now the financial institution is suing its cybersecurity insurance provider for refusing to fully cover the losses.
The process of buying or selling a home can be extremely stressful and complex, but imagine the stress that would boil up if — at settlement — your money was wired to scammers in another country instead of to the settlement firm or escrow company. Here’s the story about a phishing email that cost a couple their home and left them scrambling for months to recover hundreds of thousands in cash that went missing.
It was late November 2016, and Jon and Dorthy Little were all set to close on a $200,000 home in Hendersonville, North Carolina. Just prior to the closing date on Dec. 2 their realtor sent an email to the Little’s and to the law firm handling the closing, asking the settlement firm for instructions on wiring the money to an escrow account.
An industrial maintenance and construction firm in Tennessee that was hit by a $327,000 cyberheist is suing its financial institution to recover the stolen funds, charging the bank with negligence and breach of contract. Court-watchers say the lawsuit — if it proceeds to trial — could make it easier and cheaper for cyberheist victims to recover losses.
A Missouri firm that unsuccessfully sued its bank to recover $440,000 stolen in a 2010 cyberheist may now be on the hook to cover the financial institution’s legal fees, an appeals court has ruled. Legal experts say the decision is likely to discourage future victims from pursuing such cases.
A $1.5 million cyberheist against a California escrow firm earlier this year has forced the company to close and lay off its entire staff. Meanwhile, the firm’s remaining money is in the hands of a court-appointed state receiver, which is considering a lawsuit against the victim’s bank to recover the stolen funds.
A Missouri court last week handed a legal defeat to a local escrow firm that sued its financial institution to recover $440,000 stolen in a 2009 cyberheist. The court ruled that the company assumed greater responsibility for the incident because it declined to use a basic security precaution recommended by the bank: requiring two employees to sign off on all transfers.
A decision handed down by a federal appeals court this week may make it easier for small businesses owners victimized by cyberheists to successfully recover stolen funds by suing their bank.
The U.S. Federal Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has reversed a decision from Aug. 2011, which held that Ocean Bank (now People’s United) was not at fault for a $588,000 cyberheist in 2009 against one of its customers — Patco Construction Co. The appeals court sent specific aspects of the earlier decision back to the lower court for review, but it encouraged both parties to settle the matter out of court.
A California escrow firm that sued its bank last year after losing nearly $400,000 in a 2010 cyberheist has secured a settlement that covers the loss and the company’s attorneys fees. The settlement is notable because such cases typically favor the banks, and litigating them is often prohibitively expensive for small- to mid-sized businesses victimized by these crimes.
A California real estate escrow company that lost more than $465,000 in an online banking heist last year is suing its former financial institution, alleging that the bank was negligent and that it failed to live up to the terms of its own online banking contract.
The plight of Redondo Beach, Calif. based Village View Escrow, first publicized by KrebsOnSecurity last summer, began in March 2010. That’s when organized crooks broke into the firm’s computers and bank accounts, and sent 26 consecutive wire transfers to 20 individuals around the world who had no legitimate business with the firm.
Comerica Bank is liable for more than a half a million dollars stolen in a 2009 cyber heist against a small business, a Michigan court ruled. Experts say the decision is likely to spur additional lawsuits from other victims that have been closely watching the case.
Judge Patrick J. Duggan found that Dallas-based Comerica failed to act “in good faith” in January 2009, January 2009, when it processed almost 100 wire transfers within a few hours from the account of Experi-Metal Inc. (EMI), a custom metals shop based in Sterling Heights, Mich. The transfers that were not recovered amounted to $560,000.
“A bank dealing fairly with its customer, under these circumstances, would have detected and/or stopped the fraudulent wire activity earlier,” Duggan wrote. Judge Duggan has yet to decide how much Comerica will have to pay.