Mandate Analysis
Account mandates and authorisation limits examined, since payments executed outside them raise a direct liability question.
When money leaves an account without authority, two questions arise immediately. Where did it go, and who bears the loss. The first is a recovery question and the second is a question of whether the bank met its own verification obligations.
Dubai Legal Expert acts for individuals and companies across the UAE in banking fraud matters, covering unauthorised transfers, account takeover, card fraud and disputes with banks over liability.
Banks generally take the position that a transaction authenticated with the customer credentials is the customer responsibility. That position is a starting point rather than a conclusion, and it can be challenged where the verification process itself failed.
The relevant questions are factual. Was the transaction consistent with the account history. Was any additional verification performed for an unusual transfer. How quickly was the report acted on. Were the mandate and authorisation limits observed for a corporate account.
Contact UsAction where funds left an account without authority, covering both recovery and the liability position with the bank.
Immediate steps where account access has been compromised, including containment and preservation of evidence.
Cases where a payment was executed outside the authorised signatories or approval limits on the account.
Disputes over card transactions, chargebacks and the verification applied to them.
Formal complaints and claims where the bank verification or response fell below the required standard.
Account mandates and authorisation limits examined, since payments executed outside them raise a direct liability question.
Whether the transfer was consistent with account history, and what additional verification should have applied.
A precise record of when the fraud was reported and what the bank did, which is central to the liability position.
Attachment applications on receiving accounts pursued alongside the liability discussion with the bank.
Written complaints to the bank and, where appropriate, escalation to the regulator.
Proceedings against the bank where the verification failure is clear and the position is not resolved.
An initial rejection from a bank fraud department is a standard response, not a determination. It is issued quickly, often before the transaction has been examined against the mandate, the account history or the verification steps that should have been applied.
A properly documented challenge, setting out the mandate position, the pattern inconsistency and the timeline of the report, produces a different response in a meaningful proportion of cases, particularly for corporate accounts where authorisation limits were exceeded.
Contain, recover, then address liability formally.
Steps to secure the account, preserve access logs and prevent further unauthorised transactions.
Attachment applications on the receiving accounts and formal engagement with the receiving bank.
The account mandate, authorisation limits and transaction history are examined against the disputed payment.
A documented complaint is submitted to the bank setting out the verification failures relied on.
Where the response is inadequate, the matter is escalated to the appropriate authority.
Proceedings are commenced against the bank where the position cannot be resolved through complaint.
The payment exceeded our mandate limits and should never have been executed. Setting that out properly changed the bank position.
They pursued the receiving account and the bank complaint at the same time rather than waiting for one to finish.
Not automatically. Liability depends on how the transaction was authenticated, whether it was consistent with the account history, and whether the mandate and verification requirements were observed.
Report immediately in writing, secure the account, preserve access logs and take advice before accepting any initial rejection.
Card disputes and chargebacks follow their own process, and the verification applied to the transaction is central to the position.
Payments executed outside the authorised signatories or approval limits raise a direct liability question against the bank.
Yes. Where the bank response is inadequate the matter can be escalated to the appropriate authority and, if necessary, litigated.
Recovery action against the receiving account runs alongside the liability discussion, and both should be pursued together.
An initial rejection from the bank is not the end of the matter. The first consultation is free and confidential.
Office No. 9C, 9th Floor, Dubai Creek Tower, Next to Land Department, Deira, Dubai, UAE
Dubai Legal Experts provides trusted legal advocacy across the UAE with experienced lawyers and clear legal guidance.