Starting point of the decision
Real-time transfers (Instant Payments) are designed for immediate execution: After approval, the payment amount is credited to the recipient’s account within a few seconds. The associated speed advantage can also mean that subsequent corrections are practically impossible if a payment transaction later turns out to be a mistake. In this context, a court had to determine whether a bank maintaining the account is liable for any resulting damage.
Facts: Misrouting of a real-time transfer
Payment order and immediate execution
The legal dispute was based on the fact that an account holder initiated a real-time transfer, which, according to his later assertion, did not benefit the intended recipient. The payment order was processed technically by the bank and executed within the typical time frame for real-time transfers.
Dispute about the bank’s liability
Subsequently, the customer claimed that an erroneous transfer had occurred. He derived claims against the bank from this and specifically argued that the bank should have prevented or reversed the transaction or should be liable for the financial loss incurred.
Key statements of the judgment: No bank liability
Authorization and execution based on payment data
According to the court’s assessment, it was decisive that the bank executed a payment order authorized by the customer. In payment transactions, execution generally depends on the data provided in the order. If the order is placed with the relevant identification features and is processed accordingly, there is no breach of duty by the bank that could justify liability, according to the court.
No obligation for substantive plausibility check of the payment
The court pointed out that banks are typically not obliged to check the economic viability or factual correctness of the payment transaction initiated by the customer when executing standardized payment orders. Monitoring whether the customer is transferring “correctly” or whether the recipient is indeed the intended contracting party is not part of the bank’s performance obligation, unless there are special circumstances that justify a different assessment.
Special features of the real-time procedure: Limited reversibility
The decision also takes into account that real-time transfers are specifically designed for immediate finality. As a result, subsequent interventions in the process are only possible within narrow limits. The nature of the procedure does not, according to the court’s assessment, entail increased bank liability simply because reversal is practically difficult or impossible.
Classification for payment transaction practice
Delineation between bank service and customer’s responsibility
The decision highlights the legal boundary between the bank’s technical and contractual obligation to execute an authorized payment order and the customer’s responsibility to use the correct payment data. In the dispute, the court viewed the execution in accordance with the authorized order as decisive.
No automatic compensation claims for erroneous transfers
The judgment indicates that an erroneous real-time transfer does not automatically lead to compensation claims against the managing institution. The relevant conditions under which a bank, as a payment service provider, is liable for unauthorized or incorrectly executed payment transactions remain decisive; merely because the customer regrets the transaction afterwards or claims a mistake does not suffice according to the essential considerations of the decision.
Occasion-related advice in banking law
Real-time transfers in practice are often associated with questions concerning authorization, due diligence requirements, and potential claims in the triangular relationship between payer, bank, and payment recipient. If clarification is needed in a specific case, the legal framework can be assessed as part of a mandate-specific review. Further information can be found at MTR Legal: Legal advice in banking law.
