Things I don't understand (4): banks and scamming

 This might sound weird, but here goes...

Online and telephone scamming is increasing all the time. I guess I get a couple of dodgy emails every week. Most of them are pretty easy to spot but occasionally I see one that looks fairly authentic until you think about it. (Incidentally I always forward them to report@phishing.gov.uk.)

I'm probably more wary than most people when it comes to emails and texts, and even savvy folks can get caught out when they're in a vulnerable place.

So lots of people are being cheated out of their cash, and there seems to be a constant clammer for the victims to be compensated by the bank with whom they has an account. This is the puzzle fo me.

Yes - all victims of crime should be compensated - by the perpetrator(s) if possible, by some kind of criminal losses compensation authority if not. (And yes, banks should contribute to this fund from their profits.) 

But why, exclusively, expect the banks to compensate, except in cases where there has been a banking error or failure to adhere to policy? In most cases all the bank has done is complied with its customer's request. Where's the fault?

The logical result of requiring banks to compensate every person who has mistakenly paid money to a fraudster is they they would have to check every transaction with the customer supposedly requesting it. Imagine the hassle and cost of having to verify every time you buy something with a card (i.e. every time you buy something). 

Imagine waiting for a text or phone call from the bank for every single purchase! Anything but online shopping would be an utter nightmare, and shops would soon be (even more) a thing of the past.