Details of how hackers intercepted e-mails between a businessman in the US and a Uitenhage law firm, supplied alternative banking details and walked away with nearly R1m have emerged in a heated civil battle in the Port Elizabeth High Court.Left frustrated and out of pocket following the sale of a Uitenhage property, Ben Jurgens wants conveyancer and notary Lynette Volschenk to pay up after her firm fell victim to a phishing scam.Jurgens, who lives in the US with his wife, Wendy, has accused Volschenk, the director of Lynett@Law, of acting negligently when she failed to verify the purported change in banking details before transferring R967,510 – the proceeds of the sale of the property – into the hacker’s bank account.He said factors such as a slight change in an e-mail address, suspicious proof of banking details and a change in the tone and manner of writing should have raised alarm bells.Or, at the very least, Volschenk should have picked up the phone to verify the change before clicking the transfer button.But, in defending the claim, Volschenk shifted much of the responsibility onto her secretary, Natasha Viviers, claiming Jurgens had mostly communicated with her during the transfer pro- cess, and she was the person who received the e-mail from the hackers requesting a change in bank details.Volschenk said the emails that emanated from the hackers had been drawn up in a sophisticated manner, included the same subject line as in previous correspondence, and the fraudulent e-mail address was similar to Jurgens’ legitimate address.She said she had accordingly acted as any reasonable attorney and conveyancer would have done.Furthermore, Volschenk said she had subsequently discovered that clients of several prominent law firms in Nelson Mandela Bay, including Greyvensteins, Strombeck Pieterse and Schaefer Incorporated, had been defrauded in a similar manner.Judgment in the matter has been reserved. According to court papers, Jurgens entered into a professional relationship with Volschenk in April 2017, when she was appointed conveyancer in the transfer of his Despatch property.Once the transaction was completed, Volschenk was instructed to transfer the proceeds of the sale into his Standard Bank cheque account, which she duly did.Six months later, he decided to sell a second property, this time in Couldridge Crescent in Uitenhage.In October 2017, he once again furnished Volschenk with instructions to act as conveyancer for the property.“She was aware that my wife and I had made plans to relocate to America and would likely depart SA prior to the finalisation of the mandate,” Jurgens said.He said the firm was once again instructed to transfer the proceeds into his Standard Bank account, the details of which were on file.On December 13, he received an e-mail from Viviers, informing him that the transfer of the property had been lodged with the deeds office the previous day.The next day, on December 14, he received the first correspondence from the hackers.“I received an e-mail, purportedly from Viviers, requesting proof of the details of my Standard Bank account,” he said.“The e-mail appeared to be a continuation of a prior chain of correspondence between myself and Viviers. I therefore forwarded [the bank details] to both e-mail addresses.“At all material times, during which I used Viviers’ hacked email address, I also utilised their ‘legitimate’ address.”On December 15, he wrote to Viviers asking when he could expect payment.On December 21, he received an e-mail from the hacked e-mail address which included a registration letter, final account and proof of payment.“I was requested to address further correspondence to the [then unknown] hacked address as Viviers would be going on leave that day.“The attached proof of payment reflected transfer of the funds from Volschenk’s Nedbank trust account into what appeared to be my Standard Bank account.”On December 26, he once again wrote to Viviers to advise her he had still not received the money.The next day, he turned to Nedbank for assistance – which was when the fraud was uncovered.“I received an e-mail from Volschenk advising me that the e-mails between myself and Viviers had been intercepted.”He said he was informed that a fake e-mail account had been opened in his name and the hacker had used this fake address to furnish Viviers with the details of an Absa Bank account, into which the proceeds of the transaction had ultimately been paid.A fraud complaint was reported to the police on December 27.Absa was only able to recover R65,000 as the hackers had already withdrawn the balance over a period of six days.In demanding that Volschenk pay up, Jurgens said he had expected her to perform the services with the skill, adequate knowledge and diligence expected of the average practising attorney and conveyancer.“I would have expected her to ensure that any instruction regarding a change to my banking details were verified with me, particularly as she was aware that we had since emigrated,” he said.“I would also have expected her to pay reasonable attention to the e-mail address from which any instruction related to a change in my banking details emanated.”He said had Volschenk had a quick look at the Absa Bank statement provided by the hackers, she would have noted the itemised transactions in Gauteng over a period during which, to her knowledge, he was already in the US.Furthermore, the statement reflected he was earning in rands when his salary was being paid in US dollars.Volschenk countered that Jurgens, equally, never noticed that some of the e-mails emanated from the hacker and not Viviers. Viviers had prepared the payment requisition which was then presented to Volschenk to perform the transfer and the bank details had already been amended.She said the hackers had presumably informed Jurgens that the money would take two to three working days to reflect in his account to deter him from immediately making inquiries with his bank.The firm had hired an IT expert who could not find any evidence to show the firm’s system had been compromised and it had likely been Jurgens’ e-mail that was first intercepted and manipulated prior to being sent to the firm, she said.Advocate Bruce Dyke SC, acting for Jurgens, took issue with the fact that Volschenk “failed to pay attention and then blamed her staff”.He said if the court did not find in favour of Jurgens, it would have a chilling effect on the public’s trust in conveyancers.Advocate Avian Barnett, for Volschenk, said the fact that the fraud went undetected showed just how sophisticated the scheme had been.He said it was easy to sit back and take an armchair approach after the fact and say what should have been done.