Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Obehöriga transaktioner: Bankers skyldighet att återställa en persons bankkonto vid bedrägeri

Kullgren, Oskar LU (2025) LAGF03 20251
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats behandlar bankers skyldighet att återställa en persons bank
konto vid obehöriga transaktioner, med särskilt fokus på bedrägerier. Ana
lysen koncentreras på ansvarsfördelningen mellan konsument och bank enligt
betaltjänstlagen och hur denna påverkas av konsumentens eventuella oakt
samhet.
Första delen av uppsatsen ägnas åt definitionen av en "obehörig transaktion".
För att konsumenten ska ha rätt till ersättning krävs att transaktionen klassifi
ceras som obehörig. Uppsatsen visar att en transaktion normalt är obehörig
om konsumenten inte har lämnat sitt samtycke till den. Motsatsvis, om kon
sumenten har samtyckt till transaktionen, även om detta skett till följd av vil
seledande, klassificeras transaktionen som... (More)
Denna uppsats behandlar bankers skyldighet att återställa en persons bank
konto vid obehöriga transaktioner, med särskilt fokus på bedrägerier. Ana
lysen koncentreras på ansvarsfördelningen mellan konsument och bank enligt
betaltjänstlagen och hur denna påverkas av konsumentens eventuella oakt
samhet.
Första delen av uppsatsen ägnas åt definitionen av en "obehörig transaktion".
För att konsumenten ska ha rätt till ersättning krävs att transaktionen klassifi
ceras som obehörig. Uppsatsen visar att en transaktion normalt är obehörig
om konsumenten inte har lämnat sitt samtycke till den. Motsatsvis, om kon
sumenten har samtyckt till transaktionen, även om detta skett till följd av vil
seledande, klassificeras transaktionen som behörig. Denna distinktion är av
yttersta vikt för att kunna avgöra om en konsument kan erhålla ersättning från
banken.
Vidare klargör uppsatsen att även om en transaktion bedöms som obehörig,
kan konsumentens möjlighet att få full ersättning begränsas. Detta inträffar
om konsumenten har agerat grovt oaktsamt eller särskilt klandervärt. Uppsat
sen utreder skillnaderna mellan dessa två grader av oaktsamhet och hur de
tillämpas. Genom analys av förarbeten och särskilt ARN avgöranden, identi
fieras de faktorer som är avgörande vid bedömningen av konsumentens age
rande.
Uppsatsen visar att en korrekt klassificering av transaktionen är det första ste
get för att avgöra ersättningsrätt, och att konsumentens agerande därefter kan
begränsa rätten till ersättning. Utredningen av "grovt oaktsamt" och "särskilt
klandervärt" bidrar till en ökad förståelse för hur ansvaret fördelas i en miljö
där bedrägerier är ett ständigt växande problem. (Less)
Abstract
This essay examines the obligation of banks to restore a person's bank account
following unauthorized transactions, with a specific focus on fraudulent ac
tivities. The essay centers on the distribution of liability between the con
sumer and the bank under the Swedish law of payment services, and how this
is influenced by the consumer's potential negligence.
The initial section of the essay is dedicated to defining an “unauthorized trans
action”. For a consumer to be entitled to compensation, the transaction must
be classified as unauthorized. The essay demonstrates that a transaction is
typically deemed unauthorized if the consumer has not provided their con
sent. If the consumer has consented to the transaction, even if... (More)
This essay examines the obligation of banks to restore a person's bank account
following unauthorized transactions, with a specific focus on fraudulent ac
tivities. The essay centers on the distribution of liability between the con
sumer and the bank under the Swedish law of payment services, and how this
is influenced by the consumer's potential negligence.
The initial section of the essay is dedicated to defining an “unauthorized trans
action”. For a consumer to be entitled to compensation, the transaction must
be classified as unauthorized. The essay demonstrates that a transaction is
typically deemed unauthorized if the consumer has not provided their con
sent. If the consumer has consented to the transaction, even if this consent
was obtained through deception, the transaction is classified as authorized.
This distinction is of importance for determining whether a consumer can re
ceive compensation from the bank.
Furthermore, the essay clarifies that even when a transaction is deemed un
authorized, the consumer's ability to receive full compensation may be lim
ited. This occurs if the consumer has acted with gross negligence or has been
particularly reprehensible. The essay investigates the differences between
these two degrees of negligence and how they are applied. Through an anal
ysis of preparatory legislative works and decisions by the National Board for
Consumer Disputes (ARN), the key factors that are decisive in assessing the
consumer's conduct are identified.
The essay concludes by demonstrating that a correct classification of the
transaction is the crucial first step in determining the right to compensation,
and that the consumer's subsequent conduct can then limit this right. The de
tailed examination of "gross negligence" and "particularly reprehensible"
contributes to an enhanced understanding of how liability is allocated in an
environment where fraud is a steadily growing problem. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Kullgren, Oskar LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20251
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
bankrätt
language
Swedish
id
9190950
date added to LUP
2026-02-10 10:50:55
date last changed
2026-02-10 10:50:55
@misc{9190950,
  abstract     = {{This essay examines the obligation of banks to restore a person's bank account 
following unauthorized transactions, with a specific focus on fraudulent ac
tivities. The essay centers on the distribution of liability between the con
sumer and the bank under the Swedish law of payment services, and how this 
is influenced by the consumer's potential negligence. 
The initial section of the essay is dedicated to defining an “unauthorized trans
action”. For a consumer to be entitled to compensation, the transaction must 
be classified as unauthorized. The essay demonstrates that a transaction is 
typically deemed unauthorized if the consumer has not provided their con
sent. If the consumer has consented to the transaction, even if this consent 
was obtained through deception, the transaction is classified as authorized. 
This distinction is of importance for determining whether a consumer can re
ceive compensation from the bank. 
Furthermore, the essay clarifies that even when a transaction is deemed un
authorized, the consumer's ability to receive full compensation may be lim
ited. This occurs if the consumer has acted with gross negligence or has been 
particularly reprehensible. The essay investigates the differences between 
these two degrees of negligence and how they are applied. Through an anal
ysis of preparatory legislative works and decisions by the National Board for 
Consumer Disputes (ARN), the key factors that are decisive in assessing the 
consumer's conduct are identified. 
The essay concludes by demonstrating that a correct classification of the 
transaction is the crucial first step in determining the right to compensation, 
and that the consumer's subsequent conduct can then limit this right. The de
tailed examination of "gross negligence" and "particularly reprehensible" 
contributes to an enhanced understanding of how liability is allocated in an 
environment where fraud is a steadily growing problem.}},
  author       = {{Kullgren, Oskar}},
  language     = {{swe}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Obehöriga transaktioner: Bankers skyldighet att återställa en persons bankkonto vid bedrägeri}},
  year         = {{2025}},
}