A bank is a business entity that can collect funds from the public in the form of deposits such as savings, checking accounts, time deposits, and other forms, and channel them back to the public (customers) in the form of loans or other forms. In carrying out its business, a bank uses the principle of prudence and must guarantee the safety of customers’ funds as mandated by Article 37 B of Law No. 10 of 1998 concerning Amendments to Law No. 7 of 1992 (“Law No. 10 of 1998”), which states, “Every bank must guarantee the public’s funds deposited at the bank.” Therefore, the bank is fully responsible for the security of the customer’s deposited funds.
Although the bank operates with the principle of prudence and is required to ensure the security of customers’ funds, this does not mean that the bank cannot make mistakes. Due to the numerous branches and Human Resources involved in operational activities, if these are not properly supervised by the bank’s management, it can lead to illegal actions that harm customers. So, what legal steps can a customer take to demand accountability from the bank if an illegal act committed by a bank employee causes harm to the customer?
One example of legal action taken by a customer against a bank can be seen in the decision of Case 284/PDT.G/2011/PN.JKT.SEL. In that case, the plaintiff (the customer) had a banking product in the form of a deposit, but when attempting to redeem it, the deposit was missing. The plaintiff then filed a lawsuit for unlawful acts seeking the return of the deposited funds. Further examination of the case proved that the loss of the plaintiff’s funds was due to illegal actions committed by the bank’s employee.
Given that banking operations are directly related to funds from customers deposited at the bank based on trust, the bank must have a system in place to guarantee the security of these funds in order to avoid operational failures. Some operational failures may be caused by the bank’s employees’ mistakes, which are operational risks as defined in Article 1, paragraph (9) of Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 11/25/PBI/2009 concerning Amendments to Bank Indonesia Regulation No. 5/8/PBI/2003 on Risk Management for Commercial Banks, which states:
“Operational Risk is the risk resulting from the inadequacy and/or malfunctioning of internal processes, human error, system failure, and/or external events affecting the bank’s operations.”
In this case, it can be proven that the defendant failed to anticipate the operational risk and could not maintain the security of the customers’ funds, which means the bank is found to have committed an unlawful act and is ordered to compensate the plaintiff for the loss.
Next, what is the bank’s responsibility if illegal actions committed by employees at a branch office cause harm to customers?
A bank may establish branch offices, which serve as extensions of the main bank office in conducting banking activities in a designated area. These branch offices are directly responsible to the main office, as stated in Article 1, number 19 of Law No. 10 of 1998, which states:
“A Branch Office is a bank office that is directly responsible to the main office of the bank, with a clear business address where the branch office operates its business.”
Based on this provision, it is clear that the branch office is an integral part of the main office and not a separate legal entity. Therefore, if there is a failure to anticipate operational risks at the branch office that results in the loss of customers’ funds, it is the responsibility of the main office.
In 2020, there was a case of banking operational failure where a bank branch committed an unlawful act that led the main bank office to be held responsible for the loss incurred by the customer. This is stated in the judge’s consideration in Decision No. 659/PDT/2022/PT.DKI, where the judge stated as follows:
“Considering that, even though the transfer of the plaintiff’s deposit funds was initially carried out by the defendant’s branch office, this does not absolve the defendant from responsibility because the Balikpapan branch office carried out all legal actions on behalf of and for the defendant, so the defendant (main office) is the party that must be held accountable, as stipulated in Article 1367 of the Civil Code, and as a banking institution, the defendant must ensure the safety of customers’ funds under its responsibility.”
Based on this judge’s consideration, it is clear that the branch office is part of the main office of the bank, and thus the main office of the bank is responsible for the mistakes made by the branch office, as reflected in the ruling in Decision No. 659/PDT/2022/PT.DKI, which states:
“…In the main case:
- Grants the plaintiff’s claim in part;
- States that the defendant has committed an unlawful act;
- Orders the defendant to pay material compensation to the plaintiff in the amount of IDR 864,000,000.00 (eight hundred sixty-four million Rupiah);
- Rejects the plaintiff’s claim in other respects;
- ….”
Based on the above, it can be concluded that the legal action a customer can take against the bank due to the failure to anticipate operational risks that result in losses includes filing a lawsuit for unlawful acts against the bank.