• The Banking Ombudsman is investigating ANZ after it helped a customer send hundreds of thousands of dollars to scammers. 
• ANZ waived the financial threshold for the investigation, despite previously refusing in a $1 million fraud case. 
• The victim claims ANZ was negligent and should have detected ‘red flags’. 

The Banking Ombudsman has launched a probe into the country’s biggest bank after ANZ helped a customer send hundreds of thousands of dollars to scammers. 

Investigators have written to ANZ requesting a trove of information and documents. 

They include phone recordings of a staff member helping the victim, Kate*, send an initial $250,000 payment to a “mule” account under the name CADT Holdings – the same account name used to scam other victims just weeks earlier at ANZ. 

The victim’s total losses were $550,000 – over the Banking Ombudsman Scheme’s financial threshold. 

However, ANZ has agreed to waive the limit to enable the investigation to proceed – despite refusing to do so in another $1 million fraud case. 

The ombudsman’s probe follows a Herald investigation into the case, in which Kate lost her life savings to an elaborate investment scam. 

She thought she was investing the proceeds of a family property sale into Infratil bonds and a Westpac term deposit, but it was all a sham. 

ANZ helped facilitate the initial $250,000 payment in July 2023. 

Kate sent a further $100,000 online to the same account four days later, and $200,000 more to another account the following month. 

None of the money was recovered and ANZ denied liability. 

ANZ has agreed to waive the Banking Ombudsman's financial limits to allow an investigation to proceed. Photo / Doug Sherring 

Following the Herald’s coverage, Kate wrote to ANZ requesting a review of her case, claiming the bank was negligent and should provide compensation. 

She and her husband were “shocked and concerned” that despite being on notice about CADT Holdings, ANZ helped send their money to scammers. 

“This failure has directly contributed to my loss and put other ANZ customers at risk,” Kate wrote. 

“We would have expected ANZ as trained banking professionals to have asked necessary questions to check for and detect any red flags of a scam before processing the transaction.” 

‘ANZ is not responsible or liable for your loss’ 

ANZ agreed to a full review of the case, but in a final response letter last month again refused reimbursement. 

“We understand this is disappointing news, but our position remains unchanged that ANZ is not responsible or liable for your loss.” 

The letter said banks had a strict obligation to follow customers’ instructions but must act with reasonable skill and care. 

Banks were not required to question customers about transactions to identify indicators of fraud, ANZ wrote. 

“There were no indications or red flags in our phone call with you, or any other features of the transaction that put us on notice to the real possibility that you were in a scam. 

ANZ New Zealand chief executive Antonia Watson. 

“In short, a customer, not the bank, is responsible for checking that the money is going to the intended recipient and that the recipient is legitimate. Our duty was to complete your instructions.” 

ANZ did not believe reference to CADT Holding “should have been an indication of a scam to our staff member at that time”. 

ANZ has previously said it does not use account names or reference fields when processing transactions, instead relying on account numbers. 

“Banks can’t assume all accounts with the same or a similar name will be a mule account. We must act on reasonable evidence,” the letter states. 

While banking practices had changed since 2023, it was not industry practice at the time to provide general warnings about scams. 

“While I appreciate it’s no consolation for your situation, as an industry, banks are moving quickly and shortly hope to be able to share more information between banks to help disrupt scams and fraud.” 

ANZ U-turn on watchdog probe 

After being knocked back again, Kate complained to the Banking Ombudsman. 

This week an investigator warned Kate that her total loss was over the scheme’s stipulated threshold – currently $500,000 – but ANZ had agreed to waive the limit to enable the investigation. 

The Herald reported that ANZ last year blocked the Banking Ombudsman from investigating a $1m fraud case by refusing to waive the scheme’s limits. 

It was criticised for hypocrisy and cynicism. 

In explanation then, ANZ said the thresholds were set at levels to ensure “fairness” and “appropriate decision making”. 

Banking Ombudsman Nicola Sladden has launched an investigation into ANZ's handling of the case. 

The scheme lacked “resources and expertise” to consider higher value and more technical disputes, which were better left to the courts, ANZ believed. 

Asked this week why ANZ had changed its tune, a spokesman said: “We carefully consider any request from the Banking Ombudsman Scheme to allow it to consider a complaint that exceeds its jurisdiction. Any waiver decision is based on a number of factors. 

“As this case is now with the Banking Ombudsman we don’t have any further comment.” 

*Name changed to protect victim’s identity 

Lane Nichols is Auckland desk editor and a senior journalist for the New Zealand Herald with more than 20 years’ experience in the industry.