Banking Law (question in instruction) Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Banking Law (question in instruction) - Essay Example erefore, the holder can be either the person to whom the cheque was written or the individual in possession of it by virtue of a transfer by negotiation2. In this case, the order which has been fraudulently obtained and negotiated by Clara to their debtor is an illegal order cheque requiring an indorsement by the legitimate holder who in this case is Megan. As such, she reserves the right to file charges of cheque fraud against Clara and seek an injunction against any cashing of the cheque by Jason’s bank for purposes of reclaiming the money amounting to 15,000. Regardless, Megan’s success would depend on her ability to prove that: a) Jason’s bank owes her the duty of care; b) there is proximity between her and the bill collecting bank; and c) cashing the money to Jason would result in material injury upon her. In Yuen Kun-Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong (1987) PC, the plaintiff made deposits of money with an accredited deposit taker, but lost the deposits when it became insolvent3. He argued that the Commission regulating the activities of the deposit taken was liable because it was aware or should have been aware of the difficulties facing the depositor. However, in its decision the court said there was no proximity between the Commission and the deposit taker vis-Ã  -vis the claimant. In respect of this decision, Megan would lose the case, which then allows her the option to seek compensation for a breach of banker-customer relationship if the banker proceeds and authorises payment by a fraudulent indorsement. In Foley v. Hill and Others (1848), the court said the banker owes the customer money that is equivalent to the deposits4. The verdict considered the banker the owner of the deposits and the client the investor taking risk. In light of the verdict, Megan could successfully bring claims against the bank for fraud and obtain a refund of all of her money ‘owned’ by the bank courtesy of the fraudulent Clara and her husband if the banker settled