Mérida, Yucatan (January 12, 2021).- The Covid pandemic has disrupted the general population in health, employment, economy, social coexistence, education, etc., but the public accountant Catalino Narváez Lugo has an additional very serious problem: between July and October 2020, Catalino’s three bank accounts were “looted” for an amount of 66,402.70 pesos.
His bank account was charged with 25 online purchases on Amazon, two ATM withdrawals and a cash disposition at a convenience store, operations that he did not perform and does not recognize.
The bank in question refuses to be held responsible, despite the fact that in two of the three complaints filed with the National Commission of Financial Services Users (Condusef) they agree with the complainant.
A third opinion, regarding a complaint in the amount of $ 24,932.21, is in the process of being resolved.
However, and despite the fact that there are already two opinions of the Condusef for two complaints coming in favor of the complainant since the beginning of December 2020, to date, the banking institution has not returned to Narváez Lugo not even the $ 41,470.49 corresponding to the amount subtracted from the accounts, not to mention the corresponding interest.
Interviewed in his office, Catalino Narváez regretted that the bank ignored the problem and, worse still, held him responsible for the embezzlement, declaring inadmissible the three complaints he presented to the banking institution for unacknowledged charges.
“In a situation like this, the bank does not believe you, but you have to believe in the bank when it says it is not responsible for something that clearly is a failure in security protocols, and that leaves us users in a defenseless state ”, Narvaez stated.
“The fraud is so great and evident that there is no doubt that people within the bank are in collusion with ‘hackers’ who seize the assets of those who have placed their trust in the institution, and that they are deprived of their money without the bank assuming its responsibility ”, he added.
“They have not returned anything to me despite the fact that there are opinions from Condusef that agree with me, even the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation has ruled on other similar cases at the national level.” Narvaez continued.
“For the Court, banks are responsible for safeguarding their clients’ assets and when their security protocols are violated, they have the obligation to restore to the account holders the amount stolen and the interests generated during the time that the capital has remained outside the account”.
Crime story
The accountant’s sad experience dates back to mid-July, when his office account, Narváez y Asociados, was charged for seven alleged online purchases on Amazon and a cash disposition from an ATM on the 10th, 13th, and 14th of July, for a total amount of $ 20,262.85.
Faced with this situation, he filed the corresponding complaint with the bank for unacknowledged charges.
A second account of the same bank, where his pension is deposited, also presented unrecognized charges between June 19 and August 1, in five transactions for an amount of $ 21,207.11, as a result of three purchases on Amazon, a withdrawal from a Non-bank teller and cash disposition at a convenience store.
The event also led to a complaint to the bank for unrecognized operations, which for the financial institution not only did not proceed but also held the account holder responsible for the loss.
And if that was not enough, due to the pandemic, filing a complaint with the Condusef and the State Attorney General’s Office was a slow and complicated process that took months for Mr. Narvaez to complete.
But the worst was yet to come. A third account was “hacked”, also from the Narváez y Asociados office: between October 7th and 12th, purchases for $18,568.19 were charged to that account, and at the end of the month the embezzlement went up to $ 24,932.24, as a result of 15 unacknowledged Amazon purchases.
Again, the complaint was made to the bank and, as in the previous two occasions, the financial institution dissociated itself from all responsibility and blamed the client for the events.
The accountant Narváez then chose to withdraw the funds that were still in the accounts and created new ones (in another bank of course).
The “hacked” accounts remain active for the purposes of the investigations carried out by the financial and tax authorities because, in addition to the Condusef, Narvaez filed formal complaints before the Tax Administration System (SAT) in all three cases.
In early December, the Condusef sent the complainant the opinions in relation to the first two cases.
In his favor
Regarding the account of the Narváez y Asociados office, embezzled with $ 20,262.85, the head of the Condusef User Service Unit, lawyer José Alberto Pinto Escamilla, established that the complaint of the affected party proceeds and that the bank must replace the amount subtracted via online purchases and withdrawal from a non-bank ATM.
In a second opinion, of the personal account for pension deposit of the person affected by the embezzlement of $ 21,207.11, the same instance establishes:
“Contingent liability registration is ordered, which must be accredited within a maximum period of three business days for evidence before the National Banking and Securities Commission and the Taxpayer Defense Attorney (Prodecon).”
In other words, the bank has three business days to replace the embezzled amount, a fact that must be recorded before the aforementioned authorities; otherwise, Prodecon establishes a sanction against the banking institution.
A third opinion is pending. The accountant Narváez is summoned on January 22nd in the Condusef to talk about it.
“Until now the bank has not complied with the opinions; I want this fact to be made public because a lot happens, more than people think, to the detriment of many people who from one day to the next to find themselves stripped of their assets, and the bank washes its hands and is not responsible “.
Now the accountant demands from the bank not only the replacement of the sums illegally stolen from his accounts but also the interests generated and that legally correspond to him, as well as compensation for all the expenses that the monitoring of his case has generated.
“My good name and my prestige are at stake, in no way can I ignore this loss to my patrimony, I do not launder money or commit tax crimes of any kind, so I will take things to their final consequences”,
