An account holder (A) held an account with the bank (B). A had instructed B to transfer several large amounts of money. B was suspicious and reported its suspicions under POCA. It made the transfers when it got consent to do so. A claimed B had breached its duty to take reasonable care in maintaining the account and had delayed acting on his instructions. A argued that there were no rational grounds for B’s suspicion and, as such, it did not have a "relevant suspicion" under the law. The Court found for B.