Scotiabank Held Customer Responsible for $20K in Fraud
A Vancouver man spent months trying to prove he was the victim—not the perpetrator—of a nearly $20,000 credit card fraud. Despite providing evidence and refusing to share sensitive details during a spoofed phone scam, Jordon Judge says Scotiabank insisted he was responsible for the charges. The bank only reimbursed him after CBC’s Go Public began asking questions.
Fraud Call Leads to Costly Charges
In October 2024, Judge received a call that appeared to come from Scotiabank. The caller flagged two suspicious transactions. Judge says he confirmed he hadn’t made them, and the caller claimed the bank would block the charges.
But days later, $17,900 was charged to Anglia Ruskin University in the U.K., and $1,800 was paid to an individual named Paula S. Taylor. Judge immediately reported the fraud.
“I thought I couldn’t be held accountable,” he told Go Public. “Those weren’t my charges.”
Scotiabank Says Customer at Fault
Over the next few months, Scotiabank sent Judge a series of letters saying he was liable for the charges. They claimed a one-time passcode had been used and that receiving the code “suggested” he had disclosed it.
Advertisement
However, Judge says he never gave out the code—and the text message itself warned him not to.
The bank declined interviews and did not answer written questions, only issuing a short reminder for customers to safeguard personal information.
Experts Call Out Lack of Investigation
Cybersecurity expert Claudiu Popa reviewed Scotiabank’s response and said the bank failed to conduct even a basic investigation. He noted there was no timestamped log showing how or when the code was used, nor evidence the university had ever been contacted.
“The bank has to prove that the customer perpetrated the fraud,” said Popa.
Advertisement
Geoff White, director of the Public Interest Advocacy Centre, agreed, calling the situation “concerning.” He said institutions—not customers—should bear the burden of proving negligence in fraud cases.
University Refunds the Money
Only after Go Public contacted Anglia Ruskin University did the institution investigate the charge and issue a refund to Judge. Scotiabank later reimbursed the remaining $1,800 and interest—but without ever explaining the reversal.
Previously, the bank had offered Judge a $200 goodwill payment—but only if he dropped further action. He declined.
What This Case Reveals
Judge’s eight-month ordeal raises questions about how banks handle fraud claims. Under Canadian law, customers are usually only liable for $50 in unauthorized charges, unless the bank can prove gross negligence.
But experts warn that without media attention, many consumers may not have the leverage to push back.
“People are out there who are simply being silently victimized,” said Popa.
What would you do if your bank blamed you for a fraud you didn’t commit? Share your thoughts below.
This article is based on a CBC Go Public investigation originally published on June 2, 2025.
More…
Advertisement
