Life is just a blink of an eye… but a second is long enough…
Mirko Mirković, who works abroad, complained about the (non)functioning of ATMs in Republika Srpska. During his visit to his hometown last summer, as he stated, he interrupted a transaction at the domestic ATM to pay 1,600.00 KM. He ended the transaction without withdrawing the money, as he wrote back then, but a little later he withdrew 1,000.00 KM.
Soon, the bank from abroad, where he receives his salary and which issued him a payment card, informed him that his account was blocked, because the daily spending limit of 1,000.00 euros was exceeded. He claimed that the error of the domestic bank’s ATM was noted in a certain report that the bank subsequently submitted to him.
On the other hand, the bank claimed in this dispute that the first transaction was properly and correctly executed, that it was terminated earlier and that the money was paid. But, paid to whom? After reviewing the surveillance camera footage, the bank determined that the money (KM 1,600.00) was taken by another person, apparently without authorization, who used the same ATM after Mirko, but that the identity of that person cannot be identified, because he, according to the laws of embezzlement, also used a cash register. bank card from abroad.
In order to determine the issue of the responsibility of the domestic bank, evidence was presented that the functioning of the ATMs themselves did not cause negative consequences. The evidence is provided in the form of special documents – in the form of an extract from the ATM’s log (the so-called “log”), on the basis of which it is possible to determine all actions of the ATM for the execution of any transaction.
Thus, in this case as well, all the actions undertaken by Mirko were recorded in detail in the journal, as well as the actions of that unknown person when using the ATM, so there was no information about the termination of the transaction.
In some dramatic text, it would look like this:
09:41:06 – Mirko starts the transaction (inserts the card into the ATM)
09:41:31 – Mirko chooses the option “calculation without currency conversion” (DCC)
09:42:03 – the ATM returns Mirko’s card
09:42:11 – the ATM puts Mirko’s money at his disposal
09:42:31 – the ATM withdraws “money” (the machine automatically withdraws money that is not collected 20 seconds after it is made available!), which the machine notes with an unusual three-digit mark (“*__ _*”)
09:42:32 – it was recorded that the funds were taken
09:42:41 – the ATM registers the completion of the transaction.
From the above data, it was possible to conclude that an unknown person “withdrew” the paid money in the second when the sound signal for its withdrawal sounded from the ATM! As from the newspaper column: “Believe it or not”! As a result, a three-digit indication (“*_ _ _*”) was recorded in the ATM journal, which indicates non-standard activity at the ATM, as well as that Mirko, who initially chose the “calculation without currency conversion” option, was under the mistaken belief that aborted the transaction.
In addition, the bank confirmed that the sequence of actions from the video of the surveillance camera in everything follows the sequence of transactions in the extract from the journal.
Otherwise, it is interesting to learn from practice that sometimes even the bank is not aware of these strict technological and technical mechanisms and standards. Thus, one bank in a dispute with its client wrongly claimed that it was an “older generation” ATM that did not have a withdrawal function, which turned out to be incorrect after obtaining an extract from the journal. It also happens that, after checking, it is determined that the “suspicious person” who withdrew the money is, in fact, a family member who is using the payment card, but apparently, without the card owner’s knowledge.
Afterword – a pinch of truth…
According to Article 82, paragraph 1, points b) and g) of the Law on Consumer Protection in the Republic of Srpska (Official Gazette of the RS” number 6/12 and 63/14), the issuer of electronic payment instruments is only responsible for charges that the owner or user of those instruments has not approved, that is, the interest required to restore the owner’s account to the state it was in before the posted amount that the owner did not approve.