They claim the bank’s action in freezing their accounts and later debiting sums owed without their consent is illegal.
Earlier, it was reported that 662 others had filed two separate suits against the bank linked to a similar incident.
Watch the video here.
In February, CIMB said a processing error related to a specific third-party financial remittance service had led to transfers made to customers being accidentally credited twice.
The bank had then said it was trying to recover these duplicate sums. However, it denied claims of wrongdoing and said it would defend itself.
In the latest suit filed at the Kuala Lumpur High Court on April 7, the 2,959 customers are asking for the sums taken away from their accounts to be returned as they were debited illegally.
They claimed they had contacted the bank some time in mid-2020 over the “duplicitous amounts” and were told they were valid.
They also sought a declaration that CIMB breached its fiduciary duties by not ensuring the credited sums were in order.
The bank, they said, had also breached their contract by failing to provide sufficient notice before debiting the duplicitous sums from their accounts.
They sought general, exemplary and aggravated damages with a 5% interest per year from the date the suit was was filed and costs.
According to a court filing by Tetuan Isa Aziz Ibrahim, the 2,959 customers have more than 3,000 accounts with CIMB.
The 2,957 are represented in the suit by Fadhlina Abdul Rahman, 40, and Kamarul Hisham Abdul Hadi, 44.
In an immediate response to the suit, CIMB said that since this was the subject of legal proceedings, it would strongly defend its position and leave the outcome to the due process of the court.
“All recovery measures taken are in line with industry standard practice and after due notice and notification. The bank remains committed in ensuing a fair and managed resolution with the affected customers,” it said.
In the two suits brought earlier by 662 others, CIMB said it had not violated any contract with its account holders as it was free to debit or put on hold any account it wished.
The bank said that as a result of the duplicate credits, the account holders had been “unjustly enriched” at its expense, with account holders not alerting the bank on the duplicate amounts in their accounts.
CIMB said it was allowed to recover the duplicate sums as it was legally and contractually entitled to do so.