She almost had a heart attack. We're a big, close family.
Daughter used mother's biometric data and documents to open online account and secure 19 personal loans without bank identity verification. Bank failed to implement mandatory 48-hour fraud prevention protocols and automatically approved loans, violating consumer protection laws.
- Daughter opened online bank account using mother's ID and biometric data on June 30, 2024
- 19 personal loans totaling approximately $9 million obtained between October and December 2024
- Bank approved all loans automatically without 48-hour fraud prevention protocol required by law
- Court issued protective order on August 28, 2025, halting collection and negative credit reporting
- Rosa discovered the fraud on March 28, 2025; daughter admitted to the theft when confronted
A 65-year-old Argentine woman discovered her daughter stole her identity to open a bank account and obtain 19 loans totaling $9 million. A court has now frozen collection efforts while investigating the bank's security failures.
Rosa is nearly 65 years old and runs a small kiosk in Lomas de Zamora, a municipality in Buenos Aires Province. She has five children and was counting on her pension to supplement her income once she became eligible. What she did not anticipate was that someone inside her own family would steal from her on a scale that would leave her drowning in nearly nine million pesos of debt.
In early 2024, Rosa attempted to apply for a credit card to purchase inventory for her shop. The bank employee who greeted her delivered unexpected news: she already had an account with them. Rosa was certain this was impossible. She had never opened an account there, never conducted business with this bank. The employee pulled up the records and found that the account had been created online on June 30, 2024. Whoever opened it had used Rosa's national ID number and her biometric data to pass the bank's verification process. The email address and phone number on file belonged to Rosa's daughter, who still lived in the house.
The daughter had apparently obtained her mother's facial data without Rosa's knowledge—something that was possible because the daughter handled most of her mother's financial errands and administrative tasks. With access to Rosa's identity and her own contact information, the daughter began requesting personal loans through the bank's mobile application. Between October and December of that year, she submitted applications for nineteen separate loans. The bank approved each one automatically, without waiting the forty-eight hours mandated by Argentina's Central Bank to prevent exactly this kind of fraud. Each time a loan was approved, the money was immediately transferred to an account the daughter held at a different bank.
By early December, the daughter needed to manage the debt she had accumulated. She called the bank, impersonating her mother, and negotiated a refinancing plan. She arranged to pay back the borrowed money in thirty-six installments. The bank accepted the arrangement without question. Rosa remained unaware of any of this.
On March 28, 2025, Rosa discovered what her daughter had done. She immediately contacted the bank to report the fraud and demanded that the account be closed. The bank refused. It denied any responsibility and informed Rosa that she was liable for every peso, with interest. Rosa filed a criminal complaint on April 11 for identity theft and fraud. She also initiated a consumer protection mediation process through the municipality.
When the bank's representative appeared at the mediation hearing, she refused to play the recording of the December 5 refinancing call—the one in which the daughter's voice is clearly audible negotiating with the bank operator. The bank's lawyer claimed technical difficulties prevented her from producing the audio file. She attempted to suggest that Rosa herself had made the call.
Rosa's other daughter described the moment her mother learned the truth. "When my mom found out it was my sister, she fell apart. She almost had a heart attack. We're a big, close family." The daughter who stole from her had a gambling problem and had already emptied another account of Rosa's in the past. This time, the damage was catastrophic. Rosa's other daughter had to take out two loans exceeding two million pesos each just to cover the refinanced payments. Rosa cried every day. She forced her daughter to leave the house and had not seen her in five months.
On a Thursday in late August 2025, Commercial Court Number 14 issued a protective order that halted the bank's collection efforts. While the investigation continues, the court ruled that the bank cannot charge Rosa any further installments, cannot add interest to her account, cannot close the account, cannot pursue legal action against her, and cannot report her as delinquent to the Central Bank. If the bank had already done so, it must correct the record. Rosa's attorney, Diego Proietti, emphasized that the core fact had been established: Rosa did not incur this debt. If she did not incur it, the debt should be erased entirely. Proietti is pursuing a civil case against the bank for damages, seeking cancellation of all nineteen loans plus four and a half million pesos in moral and punitive damages, plus interest. The legal process may take years, but for now, the collection calls have stopped.
Citas Notables
Rosa was deceived and defrauded by her own daughter. The bank never verified the identity of that person and enabled credit approvals that were granted with a single click, without waiting the 48 hours required by the Central Bank to prevent this type of fraud.— Diego Proietti, Rosa's attorney
While the investigation continues, the court has established that no payments can be collected, no interest can be added, the account cannot be closed, and she cannot be reported negatively to the Central Bank. If it was not her who contracted the debt, everything should be annulled.— Diego Proietti, summarizing the court's protective order
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
How did the daughter manage to use her mother's biometric data if Rosa never gave it to her?
The daughter handled her mother's banking and administrative tasks regularly. At some point—the exact moment isn't clear—she obtained a facial scan or photo of Rosa. It was probably casual, something Rosa didn't think twice about. That's what made it so easy to exploit.
And the bank just... approved nineteen loans without checking?
The bank's system was set to auto-approve. There was no human verification step. The law requires a forty-eight-hour waiting period specifically to catch fraud like this, but the bank bypassed it. Every loan went through in a click.
Why did the daughter need to refinance so quickly?
She had gambling debts. She needed to manage the monthly payments somehow. So she called the bank pretending to be her mother and negotiated a longer payment plan. The bank never questioned that the voice on the phone didn't match their records.
What happens to the daughter now?
There's a criminal complaint filed for identity theft and fraud. But the real question for Rosa is whether she'll ever see her daughter again. She's grieving the loss of her child while also being crushed by a debt that isn't hers.
Does the court order actually solve this?
It stops the bleeding. Rosa won't be pursued for payment or reported as a bad debtor while the case proceeds. But the debt still exists on paper. The civil case will determine whether the bank has to absorb the loss or whether Rosa remains liable. That could take years.
What does Rosa want now?
She wants the debt erased. She wants the bank to acknowledge it failed to protect her. And somewhere underneath all of that, she probably wants her daughter back—but that's not something a court can order.