Banking Board of Ecuador

RESOLUTION No. JB-2015-3479

THE BANKING BOARD

CONSIDERING:

THAT by Resolution No. JB-2015-3327 of April 1, 2015, the Banking Board resolved: "REJECT the claim contained in the reconsideration appeal filed by Mr. Antonio Acosta Espinosa, Vice President of BANCO PICHINCHA C.A.; and, consequently, CONFIRM the letter No. IRG-DAYEU-V-R-2014-617, of June 13, 2014, by which the lawyer Humberto Moya González, Regional Intendant of Guayaquil, resolved to confirm the administrative act contained in letter No. IDG-DAYEU-V-R-2014-299 of April 17, 2014, in which said authority ordered Banco Pichincha C.A. to proceed to restore to the savings account No. 4037923800, belonging to Mrs. Mercedes Valentina Luzarraga Mendoza, the sum of USD$ 464.22, for the concept of three transactions challenged by the user, to which amount the corresponding commissions for the transactions made will be added."

Fundamentally for the following considerations:

"(...)

THAT this challenge is resolved in accordance with the First Transitional Provision of the Organic Code of Monetary and Financial Affairs, published in the Official Register Second Supplement No. 332, of September 12, 2014, whose text states that the resolutions contained in the Codification of Resolutions of the Superintendence of Banks and Insurance and the Banking Board, and the norms issued by the control bodies, will maintain their validity in everything that does not oppose what is established in the Organic Code of Monetary and Financial Affairs, until the Monetary and Financial Policy and Regulation Board resolves what corresponds, according to the case; and with the second paragraph of the Third Transitional Provision, which states that the Banking Board will continue to act until it resolves all claims, appeals, and other administrative procedures that it was hearing as of the date of entry into force of the same, within a period of one hundred and eighty days, extendable at the discretion of the Monetary and Financial Policy and Regulation Board;

THAT through a complaint form dated December 20, 2013, Mrs. Mercedes Valentina Luzarraga Mendoza filed a complaint against Banco Pichincha C.A. at the Regional Intendancy of Guayaquil, regarding the unauthorized withdrawal of USD $500.00 from her savings account No. 4037923800 in September 2013;

THAT the Regional Intendancy of Guayaquil, through letter No. DAYEU-ISFP-REQ-2014-065 of January 9, 2014, accepted the complaint for processing and requested explanations and defenses from Banco Pichincha C.A. regarding the aforementioned complaint;

THAT through letter No. BP-ACEC-2014-0082, received by the control body on January 28, 2014; Banco Pichincha C.A. presented the explanations and defenses related to the complaint of Mrs. Mercedes Valentina Luzarraga Mendoza, stating that:

---

Resolution No. JB-2015-3479

Page 2

Once the corresponding verifications were made in our ATM files, it was established that the transactions subject of the complaint were carried out in the savings account No. 4037923800 with debit card No. 4381081072723308 issued in the name of Mrs. MERCEDES VALENTINA LUZARRAGA MENDOZA, holder of the aforementioned account,...

The card was blocked on September 30, 2013 at 17:26:33, that is, when the transactions had already been made according to previous data. It is very important to mention that in the presentation of the complaint the client did not hand over the Xperta card. (sic)

The debit card and personal key generated by Mrs. MERCEDES VALENTINA LUZARRAGA MENDOZA constitute the only mechanism to access ATM services, so the strict custody and care taken with the card, as well as keeping the personal key secret, are specific responsibilities of the client. It is important to indicate that Banco Pichincha is technologically prevented from knowing the client's key.

For the above reasons and taking into account the client's responsibility regarding transactions carried out through ATMs and other electronic means, the Bank, in no way, can be held responsible for the transaction carried out with the client's card and personal key.

(...)

THAT through letter No. IRG-DAYEU-V-R-2014-299 of April 17, 2014, the administrative resolution regarding the complaint filed by Mrs. Mercedes Valentina Luzarraga Mendoza was issued, where the Regional Intendancy of Guayaquil resolved to order Banco Pichincha C.A. to proceed to restore the sum of USD$ 464.22 corresponding to three withdrawals challenged by the user, made on September 30, 2013, debited from their savings account No. 4037923800, which they hold in the aforementioned bank;

THAT through communication received at the Regional Intendancy of Guayaquil on April 30, 2014, the lawyer María Elena Franco San Lucas, Judicial Attorney of Banco Pichincha C.A., filed a reconsideration appeal against the administrative act contained in letter No. IRG-DAYEU-V-R-2014-299 of April 17, 2014;

THAT through letter No. IRG-DAYEU-V-R-2014-617, of June 13, 2014, the Regional Intendancy of Guayaquil, after analyzing the arguments exposed by the financial institution, resolved to reject the reconsideration appeal filed and ratified the administrative act contained in letter No. IRG-DAYEU-V-R-2014-299 of April 17, 2014;

THAT through communication entered in the Superintendence on July 4, 2014, Mr. Antonio Acosta Espinosa, Vice President of Banco Pichincha C.A., filed a review appeal before the Banking Board against the administrative act contained in letter No. IRG-DAYEU-V-R-2014-617, of June 13, 2014;

THAT the review appeal was accepted for processing by Licentiate Pablo Cobo Luna, Secretary of the Banking Board, through letter No. JB-2014-1792, of July 11, 2014;

THAT Mr. Antonio Acosta Espinosa, Vice President of Banco Pichincha C.A., bases his review appeal on the following:

---

Resolution No. JB-2015-3479

Page 3

• That Banco Pichincha C.A. has repeatedly emphasized the need for users to properly safeguard their personal and non-transferable debit cards and keys, as the lack of proper custody allows unrelated persons to commit acts that harm the cardholder.

• That the client, in their capacity as the holder of the debit card, is the only one who can alert the institution if they have been a victim of a criminal act, which would have allowed the financial entity to take the necessary actions to prevent the damage.

• It is recorded in the movements of account No. 4037923800 of Mrs. Mercedes Valentina Luzarraga Mendoza, from the date and time when the first allegedly fraudulent transaction was detected, until the date and time of blocking the debit cards, the aforementioned account maintained balances of up to US$ 1,006.60, which is not common for fraud costs through debit card consumption.

THAT regarding the financial institution's insistence that the handling of the card and key is the exclusive responsibility of the client and therefore the bank cannot be held responsible for the damage that their negligence might cause, it is necessary to state that at no time is there evidence of correct conduct on the part of the bank that allows it to disprove the accusations, therefore, it is not appropriate to place the responsibility for the challenged transaction on the claimant, given that it has not been demonstrated that the user failed to fulfill their obligation to safeguard their debit card and keep the key confidential;

THAT paragraph a) of article 51 of the General Law of Institutions of the Financial System states that banks are authorized to receive public resources in demand deposits, which are banking obligations, comprising monetary deposits payable upon presentation of checks or other payment mechanisms and registration,

THAT the aforementioned regulation determines that Banco Pichincha C.A. assumes the obligation to keep or safeguard deposited values with diligence and professional care, as well as being responsible for other services offered to its clients such as the ATM service, therefore, it is obliged to evaluate and demand the necessary security measures as a depositary of the money its clients have entrusted to it;

THAT article 6, paragraph VI, section I, title XIV of the Code of Transparency and User Rights, book I of the Codification of Resolutions of the Superintendence of Banks and Banking Board, states:

"Article 6.- Users of financial products and services will exercise their rights within the framework of the universal principle of good faith."

THAT the third paragraph of article 5 of chapter IV, title XX, book I, of the Codification of Resolutions of the Superintendence of Banks and Insurance and the Banking Board, states the following:

"Article 5.- If the result of the analysis carried out by the Superintendence determines the need for the controlled institution to introduce corrective measures to regularize the situation that motivated the complaint, the Superintendent of Banks and Insurance or the official who has the delegation of said authority, will issue the corresponding disposition."

---

Resolution No. JB-2015-3479

Page 4

For complaints regarding unauthorized withdrawals due to evidence of attempts or frauds produced in ATMs, the Superintendence of Banks and Insurance will order the return of the claimed values to the issuing institution of the credit card or where the client maintains their account, if such withdrawals originated in an incorrect procedure of the controlled institution, which may repeat against the institution owning or operating the ATM due to whose defects or lack of security measures the fraud occurred."

THAT the main foundation exposed by the claimant is that, he did not make nor authorize the challenged withdrawals, for this reason it was requested to the controlled entity to submit the security video of the ATM where these transactions were made, to which the bank replied in its defenses that it is impossible to provide the required video, as the transactions were not made in ATMs of the institution itself; (underline is mine)

THAT numerals 38.1, 38.2 and 38.3 of article 38, section VII "On security measures", chapter I "Opening and closing of offices in the country and abroad, of Private and Public Financial Institutions subject to the control of the Superintendence of Banks and Insurance", title II "On the Organization of Institutions of the Private Financial System", book I "General Norms for Institutions of the Financial System" of the Codification of Resolutions of the Superintendence of Banks and Insurance and the Banking Board, disposes among other security measures the following:

"Article 38.- With regard to video surveillance systems (cameras) it must be considered that:

38.1 Financial institutions must have an adequate number of fixed and movable closed-circuit television cameras with high-resolution images, equipped with video recorders, hard disk or its equivalent in photographic cameras for taking instant photos during twenty-four (24) hours. The video surveillance system must be permanently evaluated and maintain an updated record of its operating levels, in order to guarantee its correct functioning, the clarity and fidelity of the images; (substituted with Resolution No. JB-2011-1923 of April 26, 2011)

38.2 Fixed location cameras, at a minimum, must adequately cover the places of access to the public and staff of the financial institution and the customer service counters; and, (substituted with Resolution No. JB-2011-1923 of April 26, 2011)

38.3 The recording and storage systems of images must guarantee the archive of at least three (3) months of recording, through tapes, digital video discs (DVD) or any other system."

THAT the norm exposed refers to the video and security systems that financial institutions must have and that are applicable to ATMs, from which it is derived that if Banco Pichincha C.A. offers the ATM service, it must implement the security measures required by the regulation, in order to reduce to a minimum this type of fraudulent thefts for the benefit of the user and also of the financial entity;

THAT based on the above, it is concluded that the bank, when offering its products and services, must implement computer and technological security measures, so that the transactions carried out both in its own ATMs and in those

---

Resolution No. JB-2015-3479

Page 5

of other financial institutions, have the necessary security to avoid fraud, which in the case analyzed has not happened, in virtue of this, what is required in article 5, chapter IV, title XX, book I of the Codification of Resolutions of the Superintendence of Banks and Insurance and the Banking Board, cited above, has been configured;

THAT the arguments contained in the analysis of this memorandum are what support the conclusion and recommendation indicated below;

THAT through communication received by the Superintendence of Banks on May 7, 2015, Mr. Antonio Acosta Espinosa, Vice President of Banco Pichincha C.A., with the professional sponsorship of Dr. Pablo Cadena Merlo and lawyer María José Araujo Álvarez, filed a reconsideration appeal against the administrative act contained in Resolution No. JB-2015-3327 of April 1, 2015;

THAT the Banking Board, in the session held on June 10, 2015, in accordance with the second paragraph of article 3, chapter II, title XVI, book I of the Codification of Resolutions of the Superintendence of Banks and Insurance and the Banking Board, heard the appeal referred to in the preceding paragraph and determined that it does not comply with what is provided in the first paragraph ibidem, that is, that there are no new elements of fact or law that motivate the preparation of corresponding reports, therefore it decided to deny it outright; and,

IN exercise of its legal attributes,

RESOLVES:

SINGLE ARTICLE.- DENY the reconsideration appeal filed by Mr. Antonio Acosta Espinosa, Vice President of Banco Pichincha C.A. against the administrative act contained in Resolution No. JB-2015-3327 of April 1, 2015; and, consequently, CONFIRM said resolution.

NOTIFY.- Given at the Superintendence of Banks, in Quito, Metropolitan District, on the tenth of June of two thousand fifteen.

---

Econ. Rodrigo Landeta Parra
GENERAL INTENDANT, S
PRESIDENT OF THE BANKING BOARD, E

I CERTIFY.- Quito, Metropolitan District, on the tenth of June of two thousand fifteen.

Lic. Pablo Cobo Luna
SECRETARY OF THE BANKING BOARD