Help getting bank transfer made to fraudulent party refunded

studentgti

Hintza wrote: »

No but from the bank's point of view; it is not fraud OP transferred the money willingly. Sure the person defrauded (duped) OP but the bank is not responsible for this.

I don't for a second think it's Natwest's fault this has happened - it's entirely my own stupidity (I'm not exactly an internet novice, which only makes it worse).

The fact is, however, that the guy who has defrauded me banks with Natwest also - I'd understand them telling me to get lost if it was another bank as they wouldn't be able to claim it back.

But can they honestly tell me that as I can prove it was an act of deception that they are prepared to allow one of their OWN customers to defraud another and get away with it?! That sounds like madness to me...

studentgti

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Yes, it does become criminal.

I assumed it would. If Natwest aren't any help, do the police need to be involved to get the person's details from the bank? Would I need a court order to do this?

Thanks.

The_Pedant

As it appears to be a clear cut case of fraud/decption on the part of the 3rd party in obtaining the money from you, I would go straight to the police with all the information you have.

Emphase that it is clearly a UK based transaction & therefore a chance of tracing the parties involved.

You would like to think that it is possible to trace the transaction quickly if they wished to. With a crime number behind it, the banks may be a little more ready to communicate with authorities.

studentgti

The_Pedant wrote: »

As it appears to be a clear cut case of fraud/decption on the part of the 3rd party in obtaining the money from you, I would go straight to the police with all the information you have.

Emphase that it is clearly a UK based transaction & therefore a chance of tracing the parties involved.

You would like to think that it is possible to trace the transaction quickly if they wished to. With a crime number behind it, the banks may be a little more ready to communicate with authorities.

Thanks again for all the useful responses. The police are due round later on today (hopefully) to take a statement etc...fingers crossed.

gnaril

Yes I work for a bank and see this crap all the time, Bottom line is the customer has had money taken from him via deceipt for sure I agree.

Im simply trying to help the OP by telling him as the money was transferred at his request for whatever reason the bank wont entertain it.

Aint that hard to understand. I for one sympathise with the poster, this scenario happens more and more and they whole paypal thing is a complete farce with little or no protection.

The police is the way to go with this one, I would guess but unless it is a very dumb !!! criminal then they will have opened the bank account with lies and fake information at a guess.

When money transfer services are being used in connection with fraudulently activity, whilst the person collecting the money has to produce identification, the documents produced by these fraudsters are often false, making the recovery of any money sent by this method extremely difficult.

If you want some more info

http://www.met.police.uk/fraudalert/money_transfer.htm try that

gnaril

DVardysShadow you are failing to see the difference between money "fraudulently taken" ie they went into his bank account and took it without his knowledge and participation, and the OP giving money via transfer for goods which he expected to recieved and didnt as believe was conned.

There is a very clear difference. Your right he has been a victim of fraud as the person concerned was clearly trying to decieve the OP but im just trying to explain sorta from the inside so to speak how it would play out. Im simply trying to help the fella out and be as clear as possible.

studentgti

gnaril wrote: »

DVardysShadow you are failing to see the difference between money "fraudulently taken" ie they went into his bank account and took it without his knowledge and participation, and the OP giving money via transfer for goods which he expected to recieved and didnt as believe was conned.

There is a very clear difference. Your right he has been a victim of fraud as the person concerned was clearly trying to decieve the OP but im just trying to explain sorta from the inside so to speak how it would play out. Im simply trying to help the fella out and be as clear as possible.

Thanks for your response, helpful to know how banks think about these things.

I appreciate you work for a different bank, but would it not make any difference if the money was transferred to an account at the same bank, as is the case with me (I'm with Natwest and so is the person I bank transferred the money to)? Surely that makes it easier for them to locate and do something about?

DVardysShadow

gnaril wrote: »

DVardysShadow you are failing to see the difference between money "fraudulently taken" ie they went into his bank account and took it without his knowledge and participation, and the OP giving money via transfer for goods which he expected to recieved and didnt as believe was conned.

Eh? I believe I expressed it very clearly. You are effectively making the distinction between "taken fraudulently" [ie from the bank] and given freely by the OP after "fraudulent representation" by someone pretending to be the seller [ie the OP was defrauded]. Perhaps you are failing to comprehend?

There is a very clear difference. Your right he has been a victim of fraud as the person concerned was clearly trying to decieve the OP but im just trying to explain sorta from the inside so to speak how it would play out. Im simply trying to help the fella out and be as clear as possible.

It is precisely because you are speaking from inside that your voice appears to come from the rump. You said it is not fraud basically because the bank was not defrauded. But, as you now admit, the OP was in fact defrauded. Because you are not clear in your terminology, your 'help' is misleading and indeed damaging to the OP.

gnaril

Well i aint getting into an arguement with someone over the interweb I aint that cool, either take my advice from the inside, you still aint grasping it but nevermind.

Bank wont take on as fraud as previously posted for the reasons prev posted.

He gave them the money, the fact they decieved him is irrelevant in the banks eyes he has asked for funds to go....... thats the bottom line. and in that respect the bank wont take it on as "Fraud" The reasons behind him transferring the funds are irrelevant or who they were to be sent to and what for.

If the money was of course taken from his account without consent bingo "Fraud payment " easily dealt with.

The "help" offered is clear from 7 years experience and truthful account of how it works. All the best OP ill leave the thread

DVardysShadow

gnaril wrote: »

Well i aint getting into an arguement with someone over the interweb I aint that cool, either take my advice from the inside, you still aint grasping it but nevermind. Bank wont take on as fraud as previously posted for the reasons prev posted.

Oh it has been grasped alright. You backed off from your earlier position, but in a naive way, you have let it slip that the Bank does not consider it to be Fraud because it is not Fraud against the Bank. This speaks eloquently for the thinking of modern banking.

He gave them the money, the fact they decieved him is irrelevant in the banks eyes he has asked for funds to go....... thats the bottom line. and in that respect the bank wont take it on as "Fraud" The reasons behind him transferring the funds are irrelevant or who they were to be sent to and what for

It's not fraud against the Bank.

If the money was of course taken from his account without consent bingo "Fraud payment " easily dealt with.

It is Fraud against the OP

The "help" offered is clear from 7 years experience and truthful account of how it works. All the best OP ill leave the thread

You stand so close to it, that you did not challenge the Bank position that it is not Fraud if it is not against the Bank.