KUALA LUMPUR (Jan 12): A Johor Bahru Sessions Court has struck out a claim made by a Maybank customer for allegedly losing close to RM60,000 in her account via Maybank2u online that resulted in transfers made, which she claimed were made after she scanned a third-party QR code.

Sessions Court judge Lailawati Ali ruled that the suit is frivolous and vexatious.

The court allowed the striking out application on Nov 14 last year, following an application made by the bank under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012, for the court to decide on the striking out based on affidavits exchanged.

Based on this mode, the court will decide based on affidavits, rather than having a full trial based on oral evidence.

“The court further rules that the suit is filed to cause difficulty and shame on the bank, and it was filed as an abuse of the court process,” the judge said in her 16-page grounds which was made available recently.

The 57-year-old customer claimed that she has an account with the bank, and on July 13, 2024, while checking her account online, she noticed a sum of RM59,867.61 had been transferred without her knowledge, permission, or agreement.

She listed five transactions between 1:44pm and 1.52pm the same day, where sums of between RM9,829.31 and RM17,500 were transferred from her accounts via BigPay Malaysia, a local bank, and GX Bank.

The customer contacted Maybank the same day after discovering her losses.

However, the bank’s investigation revealed that the transactions were made online via the Maybank2u application via the account. Based on information given by the customer and a bank officer, the customer admitted that she had scanned a third-party QR code for a purchase and then suddenly her handphone turned blank and the transactions were made.

On the advice of the bank officer, the customer lodged a police report the same day, and also asked the bank several times to stop the payments, but failed. This resulted in her filing the action on Oct 12, 2024, claiming the failure, negligence, and refusal of the bank to act in her interests as a customer. 

She further claimed that the bank was negligent, and failed in its fiduciary duty to her as a customer of the bank, resulting in the transfer and losses.

Lailawati said that Maybank had denied the claim and submitted that the customer has full control of the Maybank2U online application and all the transactions done were approved by the customer. In addition, the IP address used by her on that day was the same IP address that had carried out the questionable transactions.

Furthermore, the judge said the telephone conversation between the customer and the bank showed that the customer had admitted to downloading a third-party QR code, and hence the risk would have to be borne by the customer.

The bank further claimed that the bank’s safety system was intact as a secure verification had been sent by the bank to the plaintiff, and she verified it through her device to approve the transactions.

Lailawati noted the bank’s submission to strike out the suit was its claim that the Maybank2u application was in the customer’s full control, and the transfer of funds came from the customer’s own device, that is, her handphone.

“The bank explained that the Maybank2u system functions based on the name and password of the customer. All details of account in the system are made via the name and password of the plaintiff, and all details of the recipient account and funds are made by her device and through the Maybank2u system, where a secure verification is sent to her device, and she gave the approval before the transactions are made,” the judge said.

“It is not accurate for the plaintiff to deny all these transactions. Looking at the conversation record between her and the bank officer and the police report made, it is clear that the plaintiff is a victim of an online fraud via the QR code. This is verified from the defendant’s record which shows that the transaction came from a device which has the same IP address as [the customer’s] phone.”

Lailawati said the court noted that the Maybank2u site is safe and the transactions made are done from the customer’s own device which are under her control and possession at all material times.

“All the transactions are done according to her directions and approvals based on her access to the Maybank2u portal. The plaintiff failed to prove that the Maybank2u portal or system was damaged or was having disruption at the material time.

“The plaintiff suffered losses as a result of her own carelessness in uploading the QR code on her device, resulting in all the transactions to happen. The relationship between her and the bank are via contract, based on the terms and conditions of the bank. She did not plead breach of contract by the bank in her pleadings and did not provide any evidence for the court’s consideration.”

The Sessions Court judge said the customer’s lawyer’s had submitted the bank’s duty of care and that the bank had violated that responsibility.

“However, the plaintiff did not plead a duty of care in her statement of claim. The plaintiff only pleaded a violation of a fiduciary duty by the defendant which is a different tort than a duty of care,” Lailawati added.

“Hence, based on the affidavit evidence, this court finds the action by the plaintiff is frivolous and vexatious and an abuse of the court process under Order 18 Rule 19(1)(b) of the Rules of Court 2012. Hence, this court allows the striking out application.”

Lailawati said the court is satisfied that there is no dispute of the material facts which the court can decide on the affidavit evidence that was submitted in court, rather than the calling of witnesses or trial.

“The fact is that the plaintiff is a victim of an online scam, and that she cannot accept the fact that the money in her account [has been lost] as a result of her own negligence, despite the defendant explaining the situation,” she added.

The judge ordered the plaintiff to pay RM2,500 costs to Maybank.

The plaintiff was represented by Fung Yu Qi of Messrs Pang Kiat, Yu Qi Law Chambers, while Tengku Naziah Tengku Nawawi of Messrs Sidek Teoh Wong and Dennis appeared for Maybank.

When contacted by The Edge, Tengku Naziah of Maybank confirmed that the customer is appealing the Sessions Court's decision. The Edge has also reached out to the customer for comment.