#21
http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/zxq8frd



Callers claiming to be from the police, banks or other trusted organisations can aim to panic you into transferring money into their accounts, sending them your bank cards or giving away PINs or passwords. Other scam calls can come from people pretending to be computer engineers, investment managers etc.

Tip: Do not engage with cold callers. Never reveal your PINs, passwords or memorable information, including by tapping them into your telephone keypad. Don’t trust someone just because they know a lot about you – scammers do their homework.

#22
The bad news is that your relatives' bank(s) did nothing wrong - in fact they would have been in trouble had the NOT followed the account holder's instructions.





There may be some hope though - if the account the money was transferred to was opened fraudulently then there has been a couple of articles recently about complaining to/suing the receiving bank for not taking enough care in opening the fraudster's account. You could persue this route (I believe the first step was to get details of the receiving account from the police). Can't remember the exact articles (they were recent) but maybe someone else will know.

#23



There may be some hope though - if the account the money was transferred to was opened fraudulently then there has been a couple of articles recently about complaining to/suing the receiving bank for not taking enough care in opening the fraudster's account. You could persue this route (I believe the first step was to get details of the receiving account from the police). Can't remember the exact articles (they were recent) but maybe someone else will know.
Originally posted by mt99


It's vanishingly unlikely to succeed, however, and FOS have rejected numerous complaints (at the ombudsman and adjudicator stages) along these lines, for the reason that it is unfair to expect a party which has done nothing wrong to reimburse a loss that it didn't cause and couldn't foresee. Banks' responsibilities generally begin and end with correctly identifying new customers and processing payments to their accounts correctly; they are not required to be able to see the future (especially since many such "mule" accounts are opened in the name of a real person by that person, and fraudsters generally try to blend in with normal customers, making them incredibly hard to spot).



The responsibility for the fraud lies with the conman and, sad to say, the defrauded for following the conman's instructions. It does not lie with any of the banks concerned. This may not be "nice" but if the logic behind such a complaint were true then, given that as mentioned a lot of the people opening mule accounts do so using correct information and their real identities, banks would be potentially open to civil liability for the actions of anyone who they happened to open an account for.

#24
Thank you for your replies.

I guess our only hope may be if jonesMUFCforever is correct as nothing was read out to him. But how do we prove that?



Does anyone know if they ought to have read something like this out to him?



Thank you

#25



It's vanishingly unlikely to succeed, however, and FOS have rejected numerous complaints (at the ombudsman and adjudicator stages) along these lines, for the reason that it is unfair to expect a party which has done nothing wrong to reimburse a loss that it didn't cause and couldn't foresee. Banks' responsibilities generally begin and end with correctly identifying new customers and processing payments to their accounts correctly; they are not required to be able to see the future (especially since many such "mule" accounts are opened in the name of a real person by that person, and fraudsters generally try to blend in with normal customers, making them incredibly hard to spot).
Originally posted by JuicyJesus


I don't understand this. If a 'mule' account is opened by the fraudster on his name, then why would the fraudster do this as he would be 100% identified and caught?

If the account is opened by the fraudster on some other person's name, then clearly it's the bank's fault and they failed to "correctly identify the new customer". The fact that it's 'hard'/impossible to do this remotely doesn't change anything. If you can't do this remotely with sufficient reliability, don't do this remotely then and insist on a personal visit to a branch with sufficient proofs of ID. This is the only way of opening a new account in many countries.



Without 'mule' accounts with untraceable owners this fraud will die very fast.

#26



Does anyone know if they ought to have read something like this out to him?
Originally posted by BarnieBoy


A few years ago I paid off my C&G mortgage and had transferred the funds online to my Lloyds account to do it. Even though I never physically saw the cash and I was effectively transferring between two Lloyds products in branch, because of the amount of money involved I was asked if I was under duress or if anyone had forced me to make the transfer. I doubt that this is a legal necessity but it may be a part of the banks voluntary code

#27



I don't understand this. If a 'mule' account is opened by the fraudster on his name, then why would the fraudster do this as he would be 100% identified and caught?
Originally posted by grumbler


Because he's stupid and desperate for money, someone told him he would get a cut and therefore used either his own account or opened a brand new one in order to "facilitate payments" or some other bibble.






If the account is opened by the fraudster on some other person's name, then clearly it's the bank's fault and they failed to "correctly identify the new customer".


It doesn't make them responsible for the subsequent actions of the fraudster. If I steal your car it doesn't mean it's your fault if I run over a granny crossing the road in it.






The fact that it's 'hard'/impossible to do this remotely doesn't change anything. If you can't do this remotely with sufficient reliability, don't do this remotely then and insist on a personal visit to a branch with sufficient proofs of ID. This is an only way of opening a new account in many countries.


Cue whinging and whining from everyone in the country. It gets bad enough hearing people on this forum moaning about it.






Without 'mule' accounts with untraceable owners this fraud will die very fast.


Except in most cases the owners are traceable. What is needed is scam awareness.

#28



Thank you for your replies.

I guess our only hope may be if jonesMUFCforever is correct as nothing was read out to him. But how do we prove that?



Does anyone know if they ought to have read something like this out to him?
Originally posted by BarnieBoy


You can't prove it. Even if you could, you'd then have to get around the issue that he'd been explicitly told not to tell anyone at the bank and trusted the people on the phone enough to go to the branch and send his money away. FOS have ruled against many people even where disclaimers had not been given, because they were so deep into the scam that they would have made the payments regardless of any warnings given.



You are obviously free to take this to FOS, and doing so will not cost you anything, but the chances are they will still not instruct the bank to refund because they almost never do. However if you are going to do so, do so now as the clock is ticking.

#29
Well I can only reiterate that action was taken against the receiving bank on the grounds that they had not done enough work to ensure that the person opening the account was who they said they were. in this case it wasn't a mule account it was an account opened using forged documentation. the bank had to repay the money because they were deemed at fault for not taking enough care to ensure the person opening the count was the correct person. as I said that's all I know I can't find the article but I definitely remember reading it

#30
Ok I have found it I remember now it was a BBC Radio 4 Moneybox episode about 3 weeks ago were the bank was forced to refund cash transfer to it you can find it on the iPlayer

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron