Bank refuses a fraud refund: gross negligence in Belgium

No, not straight away. A Belgian bank must refund a fraudulent payment by the end of the next business day after you report it. Only a suspicion of fraud on your part, reported in writing to the FPS Economy (the federal economy ministry), lets it hold that refund back. Gross negligence is argued afterwards, and the bank is the one that has to prove it.

That is the rule. In practice, as I saw from the other side of the counter, things often go differently.

Can the bank refuse to refund a fraud because of gross negligence?

Not at the immediate refund stage. Article VII.43 of Book VII of the Belgian Code of Economic Law, the book that transposes the EU payment services rules into Belgian law, says that the payer's provider must refund an unauthorised payment immediately, "and in any event no later than the end of the following business day". It adds one exception, and only one: the bank may wait if it has good reason to suspect fraud and reports those reasons in writing to the FPS Economy.

Gross negligence is not part of that exception. It belongs to another article, VII.44, which decides who bears the loss once the refund has been made. Two separate questions, then. The bank refunds first, and it can claim the money back from you afterwards if it shows that you were grossly negligent.

That is exactly what the Antwerp enterprise court decided on 26 May 2026, in summary proceedings. An elderly couple had been manipulated on the phone by a fake bank employee in January 2026: two transfers to a Portuguese account, 49,958 euros in total. The bank had refused to refund, citing gross negligence. The court ordered it to refund immediately, according to the Test-Achats report of 7 September 2026. The ruling is provisional: the merits have not been decided.

At European level, Advocate General Rantos argued the same reading on 5 March 2026 before the Court of Justice of the European Union, in case C-70/25. At the time of writing, I had not found the Court's judgment.

What is gross negligence, according to the Court of Cassation?

Conduct that a reasonable, normally careful and diligent payer would never have adopted, or a precaution they would never have omitted. The wording comes from the Court of Cassation ruling of 29 June 2026 (C.25.0390.N), Belgium's highest court, the first time it has given a general definition.

The word that matters is "never". It is not enough that you could have done better. No careful person in your position could have acted as you did. The Court follows the line of the Veracash ruling of the Court of Justice of the European Union of 1 August 2025 (C-665/23): gross negligence is a characterised breach of a duty of care, and the exception must be read narrowly.

The facts of the Belgian case speak for themselves. After a phishing attack, a customer had let fraudsters activate his banking app on another device. Nearly 25,000 euros disappeared. The court of appeal found gross negligence. The Court of Cassation quashed that ruling.

Who has to prove gross negligence?

The bank. Not you.

It must first prove that the transaction was authenticated, recorded and entered in the accounts without any technical breakdown. But Article VII.42, § 2 of the Code of Economic Law, which transposes Article 72 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, states that the recorded use of the payment instrument is not necessarily enough to prove that you authorised the transaction, or that you were grossly negligent. A log showing "correct code entered" does not close the debate.

In a fraud file, the issuer looks first at two things: the time of your report compared with the time of the debits, then the authentication log. In the files I handled in Liège, the refusal letter often ran to three lines. The words "gross negligence" were there, never the facts behind them. That is precisely what you should ask for in writing.

Is giving your code to a fake bank adviser gross negligence?

Not automatically. It depends on the circumstances, and the judge examines them one by one.

A call from a number that displays your bank's own number, a caller who knows your latest transactions, a manufactured emergency: these make the manipulation credible, and negligence harder to establish. An email full of mistakes, a link to a domain unrelated to the bank: the bank will have more to argue with. The table below sums up the cases I saw most often. It shows a tendency, not a guaranteed outcome.

The last case deserves one more line. When you approved a transfer while seeing the amount and the payee, the payment is in principle authorised, even if you were deceived. The automatic refund does not work the same way. The Antwerp case shows that the boundary is open to argument, but I will not promise you the same result.

How much can you lose at most?

Fifty euros, in the ordinary case. Nothing after your report. Everything if the bank proves gross negligence.

Article 74 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366, taken over in Article VII.44 of the Code of Economic Law, caps at 50 euros the share you bear before reporting a lost or stolen card. After the report, you bear nothing, unless you acted fraudulently. Gross negligence removes the cap: that is why the bank raises it, and that is why the strict definition of the Court of Cassation carries so much weight.

On a credit card, a dispute that drags on also has a price. If the fraudulent line sits on a balance carried over while the bank deliberates, interest runs on it. Two examples, for 1,500 euros left on the credit line for four months, calculated at the APR (the Belgian TAEG) as an order of magnitude:

The figure to remember: that interest should not stay on your account. Article 73 of the directive requires the value date of the refund to be no later than the date of the debit. If the line is refunded, the interest it generated must be cancelled out. Check it on the next statement, line by line.

On a deferred debit card, you have an advantage. The disputed line appears on the statement before it leaves your current account: write to the issuer before the collection date so that it is left out.

Can Belfius write the opposite into its terms?

Belfius changed its general terms on 15 April 2026. Their Article 51.2 now says the bank refunds an unauthorised payment "after checking for possible fraud or gross negligence of the Payer". In other words, the check comes before the refund.

Test-Achats, the Belgian consumer association, called this clause illegal in a press release of 11 June 2026, on the grounds that it adds to Article VII.43 an exception the law does not provide for. A contract clause cannot depart from a mandatory provision of Book VII to the consumer's detriment. In September 2026, a Belfius customer filed a criminal complaint after being refused a refund, again according to Test-Achats.

I do not read a clause of this kind as a new rule. I read it as a negotiating position, drafted by a bank, which you are not bound to accept.

What should you do if the bank refuses to refund?

Write, date, ask for the reasons. Then escalate. This is the order I recommend, with no guarantee of outcome:

1. Block the card and online access: the issuer's app, then Card Stop on 078 170 170. Details are in the article on Card Stop.
2. File a police report and keep the report number.
3. Send the issuer a written refund request that cites Article VII.43 of the Code of Economic Law, with the date and time of your report.
4. If refused, demand in writing the precise facts on which the bank bases gross negligence, and a copy of the authentication log.
5. Without a satisfactory answer within a reasonable time, refer the matter to Ombudsfin, Belgium's free financial services ombudsman, within a year of your complaint.
6. For a large amount, summary proceedings before the enterprise court, with a lawyer, can force a quick refund.

Keep everything, without sorting:

• texts, emails and caller numbers received, with screenshots;
• account statements and the card statement showing the debits;
• the address of the fake website or the name of the app installed at the fraudster's request;
• every exchange with the bank, including the refusal letter;
• the exact time of your first report, with proof of the channel used.

Ombudsfin closed 794 fraud files in 2025, according to its annual report published on 11 May 2026 and summarised by BX1. Across the 2,164 files it handled, 36% were found justified. Its opinion does not bind the bank. I never saw a file won on the strength of a phone call with no written trace.

If the fraud has left a hole you can no longer fill, talk early to an approved debt mediation service or to the CPAS, the local public social welfare centre. This article does not replace personal advice.

Will future EU law change the rule?

Probably, and not necessarily in your favour. Test-Achats reports that a European revision of payment services rules, expected in 2027 or 2028, would let the bank raise gross negligence to refuse the immediate refund. The European package under discussion does, on the other hand, provide for a refund where someone impersonates the bank, under conditions.

For now, Article VII.43 applies. Disputes over a purchase that never arrived follow a different path, described in the article on chargebacks in Belgium. For a neobank card, see fraud recourse with a neobank. And to compare cards on their costs rather than their promises, the ranking of Belgian credit cards and the comparison tool start from the same recorded rates.

Sources, consulted on 3 October 2026. Immediate refund, proof, payer liability and reporting deadline: Articles VII.41 to VII.44 of the Code of Economic Law, Book VII, and Articles 72 to 74 of Directive (EU) 2015/2366. Definition of gross negligence: Cass., 29 June 2026, C.25.0390.N, discussed by Droit & Technologies on 13 July 2026, and CJEU, 1 August 2025, Veracash, C-665/23. Advocate General's opinion in case C-70/25: Droit & Technologies, 15 March 2026. Antwerp ruling of 26 May 2026 and the Belfius case: Test-Achats, 7 September 2026. Clause 51.2 of Belfius's general terms: Test-Achats, 11 June 2026. Ombudsfin 2025 figures: BX1, 11 May 2026. Annual fees and APRs recorded on 3 September 2026 on the public rate pages of Beobank and Argenta. No link in this article is paid.