桑坦德銀行（Santander Bank）在客戶加西亞（Garcia

馬薩諸塞州的上訴法院在一場不尋常的法律鬥爭中關閉了大門，客戶Lourenco Garcia試圖讓桑坦德銀行負責損失751,000美元的損失。

A Massachusetts appellate court has closed the book on an unusual legal battle that saw customer Lourenco Garcia attempt to hold Santander Bank liable for a $751,000 loss he personally incurred in a cryptocurrency scam.

馬薩諸塞州的上訴法院已關閉了一場不尋常的法律鬥爭的書，該書使客戶Lourenco Garcia試圖讓桑坦德銀行以751,000美元的損失承擔責任，他親自遭受了一個加密貨幣騙局的損失。

According to the court’s ruling, neither Santander’s customer agreement nor Massachusetts law obliged the bank to block or investigate customer-authorized transactions, even when those transfers were linked to apparent fraud.

根據法院的裁決，桑坦德的客戶協議和馬薩諸塞州法律都沒有迫使該銀行阻止或調查由客戶授權的交易，即使這些轉移與明顯的欺詐有關。

Santander cleared after customer loses $751K to crypto scam he personally authorized

桑坦德（Santander

In the period from December 2021 to January 2022, Garcia executed two debit card purchases and seven wire transfers from his checking and savings accounts at Santander to the Metropolitan Commercial Bank of New York. These funds were further used by Garcia to purchase cryptocurrency through Crypto.com and a purported trading platform known as CoinEgg.

從2021年12月到2022年1月，加西亞從他在桑坦德的支票和儲蓄賬戶到紐約大都會商業銀行進行了兩次借記卡購買和7次借記卡。加西亞進一步使用了這些資金，通過crypto.com購買加密貨幣和一個被稱為Coinegg的交易平台。

However, Garcia later discovered that CoinEgg was a scam, and he ultimately lost $751,000 to the fraudsters. Consequently, he engaged in a lawsuit against Santander.

但是，加西亞後來發現Coinegg是一個騙局，他最終損失了751,000美元，給了欺詐者。因此，他提起了針對桑坦德的訴訟。

Garcia sued the bank for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of Massachusetts consumer protection law. His argument was that Santander should have recognized and stopped the high-risk transactions.

加西亞起訴該銀行違反了合同，疏忽大意的虛假陳述以及違反馬薩諸塞州消費者保護法的行為。他的論點是，桑坦德應該認識並停止了高風險交易。

However, the appeals panel, composed of Judges Mary Cass Bowen, Giovanna F. Balungi, and Robert J. Rizopoulos, rejected all of Garcia’s claims. They highlighted that Santander’s customer agreement grants the bank the discretion to intervene when it suspects fraud but does not mandate such action.

但是，上訴小組由法官瑪麗·卡斯·鮑恩（Mary Cass Bowen），喬瓦納·巴倫（Giovanna F.他們強調說，桑坦德的客戶協議在懷疑欺詐但不執行此類行動時授予銀行酌處權進行干預。

The court also noted that Massachusetts regulators have not imposed any overarching requirement on banks to monitor or block all potentially suspicious transactions.

法院還指出，馬薩諸塞州監管機構並未對銀行施加任何總體要求，以監視或阻止所有潛在的可疑交易。

Garcia also brought up language on Santander’s website where the bank promises to “contact a customer” about any questionable activity. But the court found that such phrasing used in marketing materials would not create a binding legal duty on the bank.

加西亞還在桑坦德的網站上提出了語言，銀行承諾就任何可疑的活動“與客戶聯繫”。但是法院認為，在營銷材料中使用的這種措辭不會在銀行造成具有約束力的法律職責。

Crucially, Garcia had personally authorized every single transfer to be made and had no interaction with any bank employees about the transactions. He only contacted the bank to raise concerns about the scam after the funds were already lost.

至關重要的是，加西亞親自授權進行每次轉移，並且與任何銀行僱員就交易沒有互動。他只與銀行聯繫，以引起人們對資金損失後的擔憂。

While this decision has limited precedential weight due to its focus on specific facts and legal issues arising in Massachusetts, it nonetheless carries a broader message about the boundaries of bank liability in the age of cryptocurrency fraud.

儘管該決定的重點是馬薩諸塞州引起的特定事實和法律問題，但該決定限制了先例的權重，但它仍然對加密貨幣欺詐時代銀行責任的邊界傳達了更廣泛的信息。

Despite the rapid rise of crypto scams—with rug pulls alone defrauding Web3 projects out of nearly $6 billion in Q1 2025, according to DappRadar—and increasing regulatory scrutiny, financial institutions are increasingly relying on the precise terms of their customer agreements to shield them from liability.

儘管加密騙局的迅速增長 - 根據Dappradar，在2025年第1季度的近60億美元中，地毯單獨欺騙了Web3項目，並且越來越多地監管審查，並且越來越多的監管機構越來越多地依賴於他們的客戶協議的精確條款，以使他們免受責任。

As this case showcases, individuals moving significant sums into speculative digital assets must be diligent in personally verifying the legitimacy of such ventures and take precautions to safeguard against fraud.

當此案例展示的情況下，將大量資金轉移到投機性數字資產中，必須勤奮地親自驗證此類企業的合法性，並採取預防措施來保護欺詐。

Garcia originally filed his complaint in October 2022 after two years of administrative claims and administrative hearings in connection with his complaint. After two more years of litigation—which saw a Superior Court judge rule in Santander’s favor in December 2023 before the appeals court reached the same conclusion—Garcia’s efforts to recover his lost fortune have come to an end.

加西亞（Garcia）最初於2022年10月提出投訴，經過兩年的行政索賠和與他的投訴有關的行政聽證會。經過兩年的訴訟（在上訴法院得出相同的結論之前，在2023年12月，桑坦德的一名高等法院法官統治，這是桑坦德的支持），加西亞為恢復失去財富而努力的努力已經結束。