KUALA LUMPUR: A gaggle of 12 clients are suing CIMB Bank Bhd and CIMB Bank Islamic Bhd after their accounts have been frozen owing to a system glitch.
The group filed the writ of summons by Messrs Nazmi Zaini Chambers on the Kuala Lumpur High Court registry on Monday (Feb 28).
They named the 2 entities as the primary and second defendants respectively.
The 12 plaintiffs are Ahmad Sharil Nor Rasit, Azwani Aziz, Nor Amirah Suria, Nor Sazliana Sazali, Mukmin Mohd Ibrahim, Siti Roziana Abdullah, Muhamad Haris Fadhillah Yaacob, Muhammad Azizi Aziz, Muhammad Azizul Aziz; and three corporations, Ai Smart Perfect Services, Ai Smart PS Trade and Harmonian Altra Trading.
In the assertion of declare sighted by The Star, the plaintiffs stated between Jan 26 and 28, they have been made conscious that their accounts have been frozen or earmarked by the defendants.
Between Jan 31 and Feb 4, the plaintiffs contacted the defendants’ branches for clarification.
They claimed to have been both collectively or individually knowledgeable: that they have been suspected of being concerned in illicit or suspicious actions by transactions involving the accounts and the freeze was imposed for the aim of additional investigations; that the quantities frozen or earmarked have been a part of the floating transaction pending clearance of the transaction to the bank accounts; and that the defendants’ on-line banking system was within the means of technical upkeep.
“According to the defendants, the accounts’ processing errors have been as a result of negligence of the third celebration monetary remittance service which led to double crediting errors into the accounts,” the plaintiffs stated.
The plaintiffs claimed their accounts have been frozen by the defendants for the aim of debt restoration and reimbursement.
They claimed they’d not been concerned in, nor had they performed, transactions that may enable their accounts to be frozen; and moreover, that freezing their accounts with none purpose stipulated beneath Clause 7 of the phrases and circumstances of their financial savings or present accounts amounted to a breach of contract between the defendants and the plaintiffs.
“At all materials instances, the defendants, as monetary establishments, have the responsibility of care in direction of all clients and depositors together with to make sure that transactions associated to the accounts will be made,” they said.
They claimed they suffered and confronted difficulties once they have been unable to make use of their accounts.
On Feb 14, in a letter of demand (LOD) despatched to the defendants, the plaintiffs demanded that their accounts be unfrozen and launched from being earmarked by the defendants, in addition to a written apology which would come with an enterprise that the defendants shall not freeze or earmark their accounts.
In the LOD, in addition they sought financial compensation of RM1mil for his or her hardships and difficulties endured as a result of defendants’ alleged breach of contract and negligence.
The defendants despatched a reply to the LOD dated Feb 21 by Messrs Shearn Delamore & Co whereby they said that – pursuant to Clause 12 of the Bank’s Savings Account Terms and Conditions and Clause 14 of the Bank’s Current Account Terms and Conditions – the bank has a proper to train rights to debit or to offset misguided credit score from the plaintiffs’ accounts; and to mix or consolidate their different accounts as much as the quantities of the duplicate credit after giving the plaintiffs seven days’ prior discover.
“However, the bank has in the meanwhile, solely positioned an operational maintain as much as the quantity of the duplicate credit as a part of efforts to get better such duplicate credit and notified your purchasers (the plaintiffs) of the earmarking,” the defendants stated.
The plaintiffs are due to this fact in search of a declaration from the courtroom that the phrases and circumstances pertaining to the financial savings and present accounts which offered the defendants with unique rights to freeze or earmark the accounts will not be enforceable and have prejudiced them.
They desire a particular efficiency order on the defendants to instantly discharge or unfreeze the accounts, an order for financial damages on account of breach of contract and responsibility of care, and exemplary damages.
The plaintiffs are additionally in search of reimbursement of their solicitors’ prices amounting to RM10,800, price of the authorized motion, and different reliefs deemed simply and expedient by the courtroom.
Case administration has been fastened for March 15.
