A federal trial court treated Lin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank as instructive in finding that allegations of repeated high-value transfers, prior alerts, and other circumstances could support actual knowledge at the pleading stage.

A Prior Victory Opens Another Door

The Lin standard is gaining ground.

In Bindra v. Bank of America, a federal court applied the actual knowledge framework articulated in Lin v. JPMorgan Chase Bank. 

The Bindra case involves an 85-year-old retiree who lost more than half his life savings–approximately $2.5 million–through three separate scams. His family added safeguards after discovering the first fraud. Yet, according to the complaint, more fraudulent transfers followed.

Bank of America asked the court to dismiss Bindra’s California financial elder abuse claim. However, the court found Lin “instructive” in deciding whether Bindra sufficiently alleged the bank had actual knowledge of the scams.

What Does the “Must Have Known” Standard Mean?

Under the standard applied in Lin and now Bindra, actual knowledge can be established through circumstantial evidence. However, the circumstances must support an inference that the bank “must have known”–rather than merely “should have known”–about the abuse.

Here, Bindra alleged more than a dozen transactions over two years. He also alleged prior efforts to alert the bank and create safeguards against additional fraud. Moreover, the complaint identified rapid, high-value transfers and other alleged warning signs.

The court concluded that those allegations plausibly supported actual knowledge. As a result, Bindra’s financial elder abuse claim survived the motion to dismiss.

What Does Bindra Mean for Bank Liability for Financial Elder Abuse?

The ruling could be significant for bank liability for financial elder abuse in California. In Lin, CPM successfully argued that circumstantial evidence could satisfy the demanding actual knowledge requirement. Now, another judge in the Central District of California has expressly relied on that analysis in allowing another elder abuse claim to move forward.

Importantly, the ruling does not establish that Bank of America is liable. Instead, Bindra’s case can now proceed beyond the pleading stage and into discovery, where additional evidence may shed light on what the bank knew.

What Can Victims of California Financial Elder Abuse Do?

For families devastated by elder financial fraud, the distinction highlighted in Lin–and now Bindra–matters. A bank’s assertion that it did not know about a scam may not necessarily end the inquiry at the pleading stage.

Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy represents financial and physical elder abuse victims, including plaintiffs seeking to hold financial institutions accountable for fraudulent transfers. If you or a loved one was the victim of elder abuse in California, contact CPM to discuss the facts of your situation and potential legal options.