Unauthorized bank transactions that bypass limits prove security failure, not customer negligence

DECODED: TECH, TRUTH, AND THREATS

By Art Samaniego

Unauthorized transactions are becoming the new nightmare of Filipino consumers. Every week, we hear of stories: people waking up to drained savings accounts, wiped-out e-wallets, and credit card charges they never made.

Too often, the reflex of financial institutions is to blame the victim and assume carelessness, phishing, or negligence. But when fraud bypasses the very safeguards banks set for themselves, it is time to ask: whose fault is it, really?

Take the case where a fraudulent withdrawal exceeds the daily allowable limit. That limit isn’t arbitrary, it is the bank’s own line of defense, designed to protect both the institution and its customers. If a hacker manages to override it, then the breach is not just of your account it’s of the bank’s internal security protocols. That’s no longer a customer issue. That’s a systemic failure.

The same is true for OTPs and PINs. Multi-factor authentication is marketed as the golden standard, the guarantee that “only you” can move your money. If those controls are bypassed or never triggered, then the promise has been broken. It cannot be laid at the customer’s feet.

Banks and regulators love to lecture us about digital hygiene like don’t click suspicious links, don’t share OTPs, don’t reuse passwords. Fair enough. But when unauthorized transactions happen despite users following all these rules, when fraudsters exploit weaknesses in the networks, app integrations, or the bank’s own backend, then accountability must shift.

Let’s be clear: if the transaction defied bank limits or authentication layers, the bank is responsible.

Withdrawal and transaction limits, whether set by the bank or chosen by the customer, exist for one reason: security. They are not just convenience tools, they are safeguards meant to contain risk.

When you set a daily withdrawal cap of ₱20,000, or when a bank enforces a system-wide maximum of ₱50,000, that limit is supposed to act as a hard stop. Even if a criminal gets hold of your credentials, the most damage they can do in 24 hours is bound by that ceiling. It is the equivalent of a circuit breaker in your home, when power surges beyond safe levels, it trips, protecting the rest of the system.

So what does it mean when fraudsters are able to take ₱100,000, ₱200,000, or even more, bypassing both customer preferences and bank-imposed caps? It means the “circuit breaker” failed. The limit is coded into the bank’s own infrastructure, customers cannot override it. If that barrier was breached, the compromise happened inside the institution’s control environment, not in the customer’s wallet or device.

For customers, setting self-imposed limits is an act of prudence. It is part of practicing digital hygiene, just like not sharing passwords or avoiding suspicious links. When those limits are still violated, it’s unreasonable and unethical for banks to turn around and blame the account holder.

Customers entrust money to financial institutions precisely because we assume their systems are stronger than ours. If those systems can be breached, it is not the depositor who has failed, it is the institution that has failed its depositor.

In the Philippines, regulators must do more than issue advisories. They must demand transparency when controls are bypassed, force timely restitution to victims, and ensure banks cannot hide behind the vague excuse of “possible customer negligence.” Otherwise, trust in digital banking, the very foundation of financial inclusion, will continue to erode.

We do our part as vigilant consumers. Now it’s time for banks to do theirs: by owning up to failures, strengthening defenses, and making sure that when limits are broken, it’s not the customer who pays the price.