An email scam cautionary tale
By Nancy Rubin, K.C. and Levi Parsche
What happens if a person accidentally makes payment to a hacker, instead of to the person they actually owe money? Should they have to pay again? In the recent decision, Jane Group Limited v. Heritage Gas Limited, 2022 NSSM 36, a small claims court adjudicator said yes.
EFT Payment Scam
In the case, two companies had agreed to split the costs to repair a sidewalk after a natural gas line was installed. Shortly after the repairs were completed, Jane Group emailed Heritage Gas seeking payment of its share. Heritage Gas responded, requesting an invoice for the repairs, and indicated it could pay by electronic funds transfer (“EFT”) or via cheque. So far, so good.
Then, Heritage Gas received what it assumed was a response from Jane Group, providing banking information and instructions to send payment via EFT. Unfortunately, this email was actually from an online hacker who had intercepted previous communications. The hacker, representing themselves as the Jane Group president, provided information for a fraudulent bank account, and asked for the money to be deposited that same day.
Heritage Gas emailed Jane Group again indicating it needed an invoice before it could make a payment. In response, (and from a different email address) Jane Group provided an invoice, which indicated payment should be made by cheque to a mailing address.
Unfortunately, upon receipt of the invoice, Heritage Gas followed the earlier EFT instructions that had been sent, depositing the payment into the fraudulent bank account provided by the hacker.
Decision
Having not received payment, Jane Group sued for recovery from Heritage Gas. Counsel for Jane Group argued that there were several “red flags” in the email from the hacker (spacing and typographical errors) which should have triggered a follow-up by Heritage Gas, not to mention the discrepancy in the direction to pay via EFT or cheque.
On the other hand, counsel for Heritage Gas argued that the loss of money was due to Jane Group’s “carelessness” and lack of cybersecurity.
In the end, Adjudicator Darling found that both parties were innocent victims of the hacker and ruled that as neither party had exhibited blameworthy conduct, the case must be decided in favour of the Claimant, Jane Group.
Key Takeaway
As we move towards an increasingly digital world, this case serves as a reminder to keep an eye out for fraudulent activity. Take extra steps to make sure your electronic funds transfers are secure. Watch out for email red flags (typos, suspicious links, misspellings, a sense of urgency) and confirm payment details via an additional method – otherwise you might end up on the hook and have to pay twice!
This update is intended for general information only. If you have questions about the above, please contact the authors.
Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.
Archive
Jon O’Kane and Jamie Watson Legal cannabis will have numerous implications for insurers. The federal Cannabis Act (discussed here), the provincial acts (discussed here) and the regulations (discussed here) are all going to add layers…
Read MoreVasu Sivapalan and Ben Whitney Legalized and regulated cannabis is on track to become a reality in Canada in just under a year (on or before July 1, 2018). This will create a number of…
Read MoreFurther to our Client Update on June 15 titled, “Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick”, the deadline for initial registration under the Lobbyists’ Registration Act of New Brunswick has been extended from…
Read MoreBy Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…
Read MoreNew Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…
Read MoreBy Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…
Read MoreRick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…
Read MoreOn April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…
Read MoreJoe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…
Read More