A victim twice: first the ****mer then the bank!

On 21 September 2025, I was the victim of a sophisticated smishing and vishing ****. I received an SMS that appeared to come from RAM Couriers, followed shortly by a call that displayed as Nedbank’s official number due to caller ID ****fing. The caller impersonated a Nedbank employee and claimed to be assisting me in reversing a *****ulent transaction.

Under this false belief, and under pressure and misrepresentation, I was misled into providing information which resulted in a *****ulent online transaction of R9 999. I realised the **** immediately, blocked my card, and reported the incident to Nedbank without delay.

Despite acting promptly and deriving no benefit from the transaction, Nedbank has refused to refund the amount. Their justification is solely that a 3D Secure OTP was used — even though the OTP was obtained through coercion, deception, and impersonation, which means it does not constitute valid consent under South African consumer law.

I escalated the matter to the National Financial Ombud Scheme South Africa (NFO), but the Ombud dismissed my case. The decision re**** entirely on technical banking rules rather than the legal principles of defective consent and misrepresentation. In other words, the fact that I was manipulated into believing I was reversing ***** was ignored.

I believe this outcome is unfair, unreasonable, and contrary to established consumer protection principles. ****s of this nature are increasing, and banks routinely rely on technicalities (such as OTP entry) to avoid liability, shifting the entire burden onto victims!