A financial institution is not liable for losses suffered by its client due to fraudulent misrepresentation when the institution acted on correct instructions provided by the client.

[20] Through the whole trial and hearing testimonies of witnesses, it has come to my mind that the Plaintiff would not have given the Defendant the wrong account number, whether in writing or verbally. This is because the Plaintiff had received the beneficiary account details from a fraudster who intended to defraud the Plaintiff. Upon receiving the information, the Plaintiff relayed those account details to the Defendant for their actions. On the part of the Defendant, they acted strictly based on instructions received from the Plaintiff. It is best to note that the Plaintiff was aware that the Defendant had acted on its instructions but did not deny / contradict or stop the payment. Consequently, the Defendant is now, in essence, the scapegoat for the Plaintiff's own negligence and the fraud perpetrated by an unknown third party.

[21] Based on the authority above, to my mind, the Plaintiff is estopped from alleging these issues against the Defendant as the Defendant had acted on the Plaintiff's instruction at all times with due and reasonable care. The Defendant had relied solely on the Plaintiff's representation that the instruction to amend the beneficiary account number was properly given and/or that (PW2) had the requisite authority to give such instruction. If (PW2) feels that she do not have such authority to give information on the new account number or to amend the account number, she herself should have consulted the management about it or probably get somebody else in authority to deal with the matter In actual sense, it is (PW2) that need to be blamed because of her neglect in her duty. Serious action needs to be taken against (PW2) and no compromised about it. Furthermore, the Plaintiff knew at all material time that (PW2) had given verbal instruction to the Defendant. The Plaintiff is now estopped from coming to this Honourable court and said that (PW2) had no authority to give instruction and the Defendant needs to obtain written instruction from the Plaintiff (SP1). Furthermore, the Plaintiff no longer has any right to countermand its instruction once steps had been taken by the Defendant to initiate the transfer, let alone when the transfer had been successfully carried out. In view of this, it is my considered view that the Plaintiff's claim that the Defendant did not act sufficiently promptly in cancelling the Remittance and/or that the Defendant had failed to refund the Remittance Sum is without merit and justification.

Fifth Issue

Whether The Defendant Had Vicariously Liable By Its Agent's, Employee's And/Or Contractor's Breaches As Above?

[22] It is trite law that the parties' contractual obligations are only those set out within the preambles of the terms and conditions set out in the Remittance Form. It is expressly stated of the parties responsibilities and liabilities. That would also include the correspondence agents and bank, Messrs JP Morgan. The most important are cls 1, 2, 3 and 4 set out the terms and conditions as below:-

(1) CIMB Bank Berhad / CIMB Islamic Bank Berhad (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") on behalf of the applicant shall be at liberty to appoint any correspondent agent, sub agent or other agency in issuing its Banker's Draft, Banker's Cheque and in effecting its Telegraphic Transfer or Interbank Giro in relation to this application.

(2) In executing the above, the Bank or any of its appointed correspondents or agents shall, in no case, be liable for any mutilation, interruption, omission, errors, delays or misinterpretation of the data or particulars of the remittance when received through wire, cable, telex or mail or through any other means. The Bank may send any message relative to this transfer in explicit language code or cipher as it deems fit. For Interbank Giro instructions, the beneficiary's account