YEREVAN (CoinChapter.com) — A Massachusetts appeals courtroom dismissed a $751,000 lawsuit filed by Lourenco Garcia towards Santander Financial institution. The choice, issued on April 18, 2025, ended a two-year authorized dispute involving a cryptocurrency rip-off.

Garcia misplaced the funds after making licensed debit and wire transfers between December 2021 and January 2022. The courtroom dominated Santander had no authorized obligation to dam or examine the transactions. Garcia’s claims for breach of contract, misrepresentation, and client safety violations have been all rejected.

Crypto Rip-off Concerned CoinEgg and Crypto.com

Garcia used his Santander checking and financial savings accounts to finish two debit card funds and 7 wire transfers. The cash went to Metropolitan Business Financial institution of New York. From there, it was used to purchase cryptocurrency on Crypto.com and a platform named CoinEgg.

Later, Garcia discovered that CoinEgg was a rip-off. His complete loss amounted to $751,000. He then sued Santander Financial institution, claiming the establishment ought to have recognized and stopped what he known as suspicious exercise. He stated the financial institution failed to stop him from transferring cash to a fraudulent crypto platform.

Nonetheless, the courtroom discovered that Garcia licensed all transactions himself. He didn’t notify Santander of any considerations till after the transfers have been accomplished and the cash misplaced.

Santander Financial institution Had No Authorized Obligation, Court docket Says

The courtroom reviewed the Santander buyer settlement, which acknowledged that the financial institution “may” act in suspected fraud circumstances. The phrase “may” gave the financial institution permission, not an obligation. The panel stated there was no authorized requirement below the settlement or Massachusetts regulation for Santander to cease customer-approved transfers.

Garcia additionally referred to Santander’s public statements. On its web site, the financial institution says it might contact clients about suspicious exercise. However the courtroom dominated that this assertion didn’t create a binding obligation.

The ruling emphasised that no state laws required banks to research or block each switch. This utilized even in high-value crypto circumstances.

Garcia’s Two-12 months Authorized Problem Ends

Garcia filed his unique criticism in October 2022. The Superior Court docket dismissed the lawsuit, and the Massachusetts Appeals Court docket upheld that call on April 18, 2025.

The panel’s ruling famous that banks will not be liable when clients ship cash voluntarily—even when the vacation spot seems to be a rip-off. The choice was not printed, so it has restricted authorized precedent. Nonetheless, it reinforces that banks outline their position by way of contracts, not buyer expectations.