Victims of Earl Jones allowed to sue Royal Bank - Macleans.ca
 

Victims of Earl Jones allowed to sue Royal Bank

Claimants asking for $40 million in damages


 

Victims of Montreal swindler Earl Jones will be allowed to file a class-action lawsuit against the Royal Bank of Canada, a Quebec Superior Court judge decided Wednesday. The claimants want $40 million in damages from the bank, which they say carelessly allowed him to use personal cheques for business purposes, making it easier for him to steal their money. Jones, 67, is serving an 11-year jail sentence for defrauding more than 150 people out of $50 million.

Montreal Gazette


 
Filed under:

Victims of Earl Jones allowed to sue Royal Bank

  1. As much as I sympathize with the victims of Jones, this is a ridiculous lawsuit. Like any other individual, I would be offended if the bank were scrutinizing my account activity, looking for suspicious behaviour.

  2. The suit actually alledges that Royal Bank did do its due diligence when allowing Earl Jones to deposit cheques into his account, which the bank is obligated to do. See http://www.canada.com/business/fp/Earl+Jones+vict

    • Sorry the bank did NOT do it due diligence.

  3. Under the Bank Act, the Royal Bank and its officers have a duty to act in a "prudent" manner. This would appear to preclude turning a blind eye or, at worse, conspiring by their inactions.

    The standard is "knew, or should have reasonably been expected to know" of a fraud, over many years, happening right underneath their noses.

    Schedule 1 financial institutions enjoy a very favoured position in Canada's economy.

    To those that are given great abilities in a state-sanctioned oligopoly, at least a minimum standard of care should be expected.

    • A minimum standard of care should also include training employees properly, something the biggies in our country have a spotty record with.

      In my experience, branch managers tend to be familiar with the banking activities of unusual clients, such as ones with large deposits, ones who bounce a lot of cheques, etc.

      What I have issues with is "VIP treatment" for clients with large balances. I can live with the big boys not waiting in line with us peons or having a private room, but I couldn't get away with depositing cheques with shaky endorsements.

      Mind you, I still think the lack of due diligence is 95% on the investors' part.. Just goes to prove that money can't buy smarts.

  4. I wouldn't want to be the lawyer facing RBC's lawyers. They might settle; otherwise, I hope you've been saving for a rainy day — because it's about to pour.