Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Fourth Circuit Rejects Rehearing in ACH Fraud Suit Alleging Violations of KYC Rules and NACHA Operating Standards

By A.J. Dhaliwal, Mehul Madia & Beineng Zhang on April 25, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
White-Collar-Blog-Image-AML-660x283

On April 22, the Fourth Circuit declined to reconsider a panel ruling that found a credit union could not be held liable for a scam in which fraudsters diverted over $560,000 from a metal fabricator through unauthorized ACH transfers. The denial leaves intact a March 2025 decision overturning the district court’s earlier ruling in favor of the plaintiff.

The dispute stems from a 2018 incident in which the company received a spoof email claiming to be from a supplier and directing the company to reroute payments to a new bank account. Relying on the instructions, the company made four ACH transfers to an account at the credit union, identifying the supplier as the beneficiary. However, the funds were deposited into an account belonging to another individual who had also been unknowingly involved in the fraud.

In its original complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the credit union failed to comply with Know Your Customer (KYC) regulations and anti-money laundering (AML) procedures by not verifying the identity or eligibility of the account holder. The complaint also asserted that the credit union violated the NACHA Operating Rules by accepting commercial ACH transfers—coded for business transactions—into a personal account. These claims were framed as failures to implement basic security protocols and to recognize clear mismatches in the payment data.

The panel held that the credit union lacked actual knowledge that the account was being used for fraudulent purposes and therefore could not be held liable under applicable law. In a concurring opinion, however, one judge noted that the record may contain evidence suggesting the credit union obtained actual knowledge of the misdescription before the final two transfers.

Putting It Into Practice: Even though the credit union ultimately avoided liability, the action is a good example of the lengths plaintiffs’ attorneys are going to hold banks liable for fraud related to spoofing. Unfortunately, Regulation E provides no avenue for relief for consumers where they are tricked into transferring money knowingly to another account. And the CFPB’s lawsuit against major banks related to similar conduct, where claims under the CFPA were alleged, was dropped earlier this year. 

Photo of A.J. Dhaliwal A.J. Dhaliwal

A.J. is a partner in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about A.J. DhaliwalEmail
Photo of Mehul Madia Mehul Madia

Mehul Madia, special counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, provides deep consumer finance and fintech expertise to clients, leveraging more than 15 years’ of public and private sector experience.

Read more about Mehul MadiaEmail
Photo of Beineng Zhang Beineng Zhang

Beineng Zhang is an associate in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Orange County office.

Read more about Beineng ZhangEmail
  • Posted in:
    Banking, Finance and Securities
  • Blog:
    Consumer Finance and Fintech Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo