When someone gets money off a bank that they are not entitled to, it is the bank that has been defrauded - not the person that was impersonated.
The banks have successfully created an imaginary crime of identity theft - to shift responsibility back to their customers. You could argue that it isn't such a bad thing to do as the weakness in the bank's security is mainly their customers and the trillion and one idiot things they do. But fundamentally it is the bank that is the victim of the crime.
As for this story, the police commish is wrong by trying to imply a Moral Hazard effect of the customer's being immediately reimbursed when the bank suffers a fraud whereas the reality is that the customer's are not being defrauded and the banks are trying to improve their securities by making their customers suffer when they do.