Bank duties and fraud proceeds
Venkatraman v. Bank of America
In brief
- Where it stands
- Petition Pending
Awaiting an order on the petition
- What it’s about
- Venky Venkatraman alleges scammers directed him to deposit $94,345 into Bank of America accounts, and says the bank later recovered some of the money; the Fifth Circuit ruled the bank owed him no duty because the accounts belonged to third parties, despite his roughly 25-year customer relationship.
- What's at stake
- Whether Bank of America had a responsibility to take reasonable care toward Venkatraman in these circumstances remains unresolved.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
His petition asking the Supreme Court to review that rule is pending and was distributed for a conference.
Venkatraman says scammers directed him to deposit $94,345 into Bank of America accounts, and that the bank later recovered some of the money. He says he had been a Bank of America customer for about 25 years.
The Fifth Circuit reached its no-duty conclusion at the pleading stage, based on the accounts being titled to third parties.
Question presented
Whether a national bank may be categorically insulated from any duty-of-care inquiry when fraud proceeds are deposited into accounts titled to third parties, even where the injured person is the bank's own longstanding customer and alleges facts concerning the bank's control of the recipient accounts, warning signs, and subsequent recovery of part of the proceeds.
What happens next
The petition was distributed for the Court's December 4, 2026, conference; that does not mean the Court agreed to hear it. Oral argument has not been scheduled.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.