With other payment methods there are many methods to reverse transactions in response to fraud, which includes a person willingly sending money after being deceived. There’s no reason that an electronic payment method can’t provide that kind of protection, financial institutions have the responsibility to know who their customers are and to not facilitate fraud. They should be on the hook to be able to reverse a transaction.
A person should not be able to create an account, commit fraud, and run away with the proceeds. A bank is responsible for flagging suspicious transactions especially for new accounts… making them hold the bag when there is fraud means they will be motivated to accurately judge risk and refuse transactions when it is high.
60% of fraud is “friendly fraud” where you send your money to your associate (or make online card payment), call bank, accuse fraud and double your money.
Alternative demand money back from a completely fine product and delivery.
With too much consumer protection friendly fraud goes up easily. People will scam the system other way around.
Consider the payment system call cash: there is no way to reverse fraudulent transactions except via the court or criminal justice system. I think it is very reasonable to have an electronic cash payment system which you would use for the same purposes you currently use cash--mostly either in person transactions or with people you trust.
>"A person should not be able to create an account, commit fraud, and run away with the proceeds."
Well this is what we have a criminal justice system for.
A person should not be able to create an account, commit fraud, and run away with the proceeds. A bank is responsible for flagging suspicious transactions especially for new accounts… making them hold the bag when there is fraud means they will be motivated to accurately judge risk and refuse transactions when it is high.