Article has been amended for accuracy.

KUALA LUMPUR (April 29): CIMB Group Holdings Bhd, whose subsidiaries CIMB Bank Bhd and CIMB Islamic Bank Bhd are being sued by 2,959 individuals over breach of contract and breach of duty of care, said it will strongly defend its position and leave the outcome to the due process of the court.

“Insofar as matters that are the subject of legal proceedings, CIMB will strongly defend its position and leave the outcome to the due process of the court.

“All recovery measures taken are in line with industry standard practices and after due notice and notification. The bank remains committed to ensuring a fair and managed resolution with affected customers,” CIMB told theedgemarkets.com in an email.

The plaintiffs, who are representatives of the action consisting of 2,959 individuals and represented by Fadhilina Abdul Rahman and Kamarul Hisham Abdul Hadi, filed the summons through Messrs Isa Aziz Ibrahim in the Kuala High Court, and named CIMB Bank and CIMB Islamic Bank as defendants.

In the statement of claim, the plaintiffs said that in or around mid-2020, they were involved in cryptocurrency activities wherein they received several transactions of funds.

In an abundance of caution, the plaintiffs averred that they contacted the defendants and were informed that the credit was valid.

However, in or around January 2022, the plaintiffs were notified that their savings and/or current accounts were frozen or earmarked. When contacted, the defendants stated that it was "an over credit or duplicate credit". The plaintiffs were given an option to either pay the over credit or monies from the plaintiffs’ accounts would be deducted/set off after Feb 2, 2022.

On Jan 28, 2022, Messrs Isa Aziz Ibrahim issued a letter of demand seeking an explanation on the earmarking of accounts and for the accounts to be released from earmarking and/or freezing. Further letters were issued on Feb 11 and 17 and March 7, 2022 respectively.

While the defendants’ solicitors informed the plaintiffs on Jan 28, 2022 that they were still waiting for their clients’ instructions, no response was made until March 11, 2022, wherein the defendants’ solicitors stated that all the duplicate credit was performed by a third-party remittance service provider under the plaintiffs’ instructions and it faced a processing error which inadvertently duplicated the credit, thereby unjustly enriching the plaintiffs.

On April 6, 2022, Messrs Isa Aziz Ibrahim responded to the defendants’ solicitors’ reply to deny the allegations and/or averments therein.

The plaintiffs sought to claim from the defendants over the failure or neglect to provide sufficient notice and valid reasons before debiting/setting off/earmarking monies in the plaintiffs’ accounts.

They also alleged that the defendants had failed to act with care, skill and diligence or to fulfil their fiduciary duties.

“The plaintiffs in this suit were assured by the defendants’ representatives that the transactions were valid and monies which the plaintiffs were entitled to,” said the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs in this suit are seeking loss and damages suffered financially from the pressure of having to pay monies deemed due and owing, and the mental and physical stress imposed on them.

They are also seeking an injunction to prevent the defendants via their employees and/or agents from contacting the plaintiffs whether via SMSes, emails or phone calls to demand the return of the monies earmarked.