A financial institution does not have to display a notice that its ATMs may contain counterfeit bills.
The fake can closely resemble the real, even though the fake can be truer than the true. But one thing is certain, the fake remains fake.
Thus, a police officer, after going to a branch of a financial institution, withdraws the sum of $100 in $20 bills from an ATM. Two days later, he makes a transaction in a convenience store and pays with a $20 bill that turns out to be a fake. In the following weeks, criminal charges are brought against him for using counterfeit currency. After being suspended from duty at half pay, the police officer is ultimately acquitted by the disciplinary authority.
Invoking the poor administration of ATMs, the police officer turns to the Court* and claims damages from the financial institution for loss of salary and damage to his reputation.
Notwithstanding the police officer's evidence, the Court rules that the institution did not commit any fault since it acted with the diligence of a reasonable person and in accordance with the standard practice of the industry. The institution does not have to display a notice that its ATMs may contain fake bills, even if it does not verify or sort the bills intended for them.
Following this judgment, a question arises: Is it preferable to use a credit or debit card rather than risk withdrawing fake bills from an ATM? On the other hand, until proven otherwise, one can continue, safely, to send their requests to Santa Claus because there are no fakes, they are all real.
*CS 700-05-010689-010, 2003-09-17
