HRS §490:4A-203
When a bank cannot keep payment for a payment order
This section covers payment orders that are not truly authorized by the customer but are still treated as valid. It says a bank can limit its right to keep payment by a written agreement, but cannot keep payment if the customer proves the order was not caused by someone the customer trusted or who got secret information. It also applies to changes to payment orders.
everyone
The statute, as written — Unenforceability of certain verified payment orders
(a) If an accepted payment order is not, under section 490:4A-202(a), an authorized order of a customer identified as sender, but is effective as an order of the customer pursuant to section 490:4A-202(b), the following rules apply: (1) By express agreement, evidenced by a record, the receiving bank may limit the extent to which it is entitled to enforce or retain payment of the payment order; and (2) The receiving bank shall not be entitled to enforce or retain payment of the payment order if the customer proves that the order was not caused, directly or indirectly, by a person (i) entrusted at any time with duties to act for the customer with respect to payment orders or the security procedure, or (ii) who obtained access to transmitting facilities of the customer or who obtained, from a source controlled by the customer and without authority of the receiving bank, information facilitating breach of the security procedure, regardless of how the information was obtained or whether the customer was at fault. In this paragraph, "information" includes any access device, computer software, or the like. (b) This section applies to amendments of payment orders to the same extent it applies to payment orders.
LawTrove is not legal advice. The summary above is a computer-generated restatement — the authoritative text is the official version linked above.