Judge finds cashier violated rules of banking secrecy

The First Hall of the Civil Court yesterday found that HSBC Bank Malta plc had violated the principles of banking secrecy when it had divulged details of a client's account.

Nicole Mairangas claimed that bank employees had revealed her bank account to her father-in-law. This, she argued, was contrary to the provisions of the law regulating commercial banking and the law governing professional secrecy.

She therefore asked the court to order the bank to pay her damages.

Mr Justice Geoffrey Valenzia heard that Ms Mairangas was told by her husband that his father had been given information of her accounts by a bank official. The husband had told Ms Mairangas she had taken money out of her bank account.

When Ms Mairangas took up the matter with the bank, the customer services manager told her that her father-in-law had asked information about her accounts from a cashier. The cashier had divulged such information as the father-in-law was a regular client and also because the cashier felt under pressure.

The court heard the evidence given by the cashier and examined the statement the cashier had made to the police.

Mr Justice Valenzia noted that the cashier had divulged more than the mere existence of a bank account. In the statement, the cashier had told the police she had replied to the father-in-law's question as to the balance in the account, for when he had mentioned a sum of money she had confirmed it.

Mr Justice Valenzia added that although he could not decide on whether the cashier had committed a criminal offence (as this was not within the jurisdiction of the court), he could conclude that the cashier had violated the principles of secrecy emanating from the law governing commercial banking.

It also resulted that the cashier had violated the principle of confidentiality that emanated from the contract of opening a bank account.

The mere fact that the cashier had confirmed the existence of the bank account to the father-in-law was in violation of the obligation of secrecy. But the cashier had even confirmed the balance in the account.

The court therefore found in favour of Ms Mairangas and ruled that the bank had violated the principles of banking secrecy.

However, the court declined to award damages to Ms Mairangas as no evidence of damages had been forthcoming.