Does a bank have a duty to protect its customers from their own navet, as exemplified in

Does a bank have a duty to protect its customers from their own naïveté, as exemplified in this case by Dunn’s giving his bank account information to someone he did not know? Why or why not?

Floyd Dunn, a U.S. citizen, was hired to lobby in the United States for Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo). After three years of efforts on Zaire’s behalf, Dunn submitted a bill for $500,000. Instead of paying, Zaire agreed to trade computers to Dunn, who was to sell them to Nigeria for $32,100,000. “Senator Frank,” who claimed to be from Nigeria, told Dunn that he would receive the $32,100,000 after he paid alleged “back taxes” to that country. Frank offered to facilitate the payments. Dunn gave Frank the number of his account at Bank One, N.A., in Shreveport, Louisiana. As part of the deal, on August 1, 2001, a check in the amount of $315,000 drawn on the account of Argenbright Security, Inc., at First Union National Bank of Georgia was deposited into Dunn’s account—which had never held more than $5,000—and sent out for collection. Because the check contained an incorrect routing number, its processing was delayed. Meanwhile, on Frank’s instructions, Dunn wired $277,000 to an account at a Virginia bank. On September 24, the $315,000 check was returned to Bank One as counterfeit.