The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

A class action against Bank Hapoalim for collecting excessive fees was rejected - voila! Of money

2022-07-26T10:13:19.904Z


Meaning: the bank's customers do not have the right to choose which commission to pay A class action lawsuit against Bank Hapoalim for collecting excessive fees was rejected Meaning: the bank's customers do not have the right to choose which commission to pay. At the center of the request for approval was the question: should the bank allow its customers to "artificially" split cash operations into several operations in order to avoid paying a higher fee David Rosenthal 24/07/20


A class action lawsuit against Bank Hapoalim for collecting excessive fees was rejected

Meaning: the bank's customers do not have the right to choose which commission to pay.

At the center of the request for approval was the question: should the bank allow its customers to "artificially" split cash operations into several operations in order to avoid paying a higher fee

David Rosenthal

24/07/2022

Sunday, July 24, 2022, 1:55 p.m

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share by email

  • Share in general

  • Comments

    Comments

The district court in Nazareth rejected a class action against Bank Hapoalim in the amount of approximately NIS 21 million.

At the center of the approval request was the question: Should the bank allow its customers to split cash operations into several operations "artificially" in order to avoid paying a higher fee?



In the full tariff published by the Bank of Israel, there are two types of customer fees for cash withdrawals.

If it is an amount of NIS 10,000 or less, the customer will be charged a normal transaction fee by a clerk.

But if it is an amount over NIS 10,000 - the customer will be charged a cash handling fee derived from the amount of the transaction.

Such a fee can eventually reach relatively high amounts.



The applicant, the bank's customer, claimed that from what she learns from the tariff instructions, it is possible for her to pay two different types of fees for cash withdrawals, one expensive (withdrawal of the entire amount in one go) and the other cheaper (withdrawal in two go), and accordingly the bank should inform her of the possibility She is about to split cash operations into several operations, each of which will be under NIS 10,000, thus allowing her to pay a lower fee.



On the other hand, the bank claimed that the applicant's claim that she has the "right to choose" which fee to pay is contrary to the instructions of the Bank of Israel, the bank's tariff and the economic logic underlying the cash handling fee.

In this context, the bank explained that as the amount of cash handled by the bank increases, the handling costs on the part of the bank increase and a greater investment of resources is required, both due to security and safety needs and due to legal requirements, therefore there is a principle justification for distinguishing between a fee paid for handling cash in low amounts and that paid In favor of handling large amounts of cash, as the sub-legislator himself believed when he installed the full tariff.

There is no right to choose.

Bank Hapoalim (Photo: ShutterStock)

The bank also claimed that accepting the applicant's interpretation would make the cash handling fee a "dead letter" since according to the applicant's method the bank must allow the customer to split each cash operation into several sub-operations, each of which is under NIS 10,000.

In addition, the bank claimed that the artificial splitting of the transaction into a number of sub-operations with lower amounts is not even consistent with the provisions of the anti-money laundering laws and may be used by the client to circumvent these provisions while evading the regular reporting obligations in relation to cash operations with large amounts.




In the verdict, the Judge of the District Court in Nazareth, Eitaf Ilvoni rejected the claim and stated that it is not disputed that the two fees in connection with cash handling are fixed at the full rate, but that they are not fees charged for the same service.

The judge explained that: "Although the two fees relate to withdrawing cash and depositing it, and in that sense they apparently refer to a similar service, but I think that the applicant made a mistake when she tried to argue that we are dealing with a "high rate" versus a "low rate" for the same service. We are not dealing with In the fees charged for the same service, or in two fees charged for different services, or if you want "different products" - hence the need to set a different rate for them."



The judge also caused astonishment when he wrote in the ruling that: "Different costs, different allocation of resources, different business risk, and the like are considerations that justify a distinction between the amount of fees charged by law for services provided by the bank - a distinction which the bank allegedly insisted on in good faith and for clear reasons. Indeed, the applicant believes Because only she is given the right to choose which fee to pay, regardless of the operational cost caused to the banking corporation for providing the service for any transaction regardless of its value?!"



As mentioned, in the end, the district court rejected the applicant's claims and even determined that she did not have a personal cause of action against the bank, which legally allowed her to split the actions.

The court ordered the applicant to pay legal expenses of NIS 35,000 to the bank.



Bank Hapoalim was represented by lawyers Sharon Lubetzki Hess, Shahar Haron and Viniv Holtzman from Amit Polk Matlon.

  • Of money

Tags

  • Bank Hapoalim

Source: walla

All business articles on 2022-07-26

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy

The information on this site is from external sources that are not under our control.
The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation or endorse the views expressed within them.