Can someone please explain why bank can't reverse a transfer ?

Jon_01

Afternoon all,

My lads just fallen for scam.
He's transferred the best part of £300 into another acc. The item hasn't shown up and the seller isn't responding to communications. (I've gone through the messages to and from and they look convincing, they guy had bought and sold on the site before with no problems etc. It all looked ok).

The bank (Halifax) tell him there's nothing they'll do about ?

I fail to understand how they can get away with this without giving an explanation?
It appears that if the banks are running a system that can't be reversed then (obviously) that's the system that scammers are going to using to take money from people.

How can the banks justify a none reversible system when fraud can be proven?

JuicyJesus

Jon_01 wrote: »

How can the banks justify a none reversible system when fraud can be proven?

Because you could be the one committing a fraud...

Jon_01

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Because you could be the one committing a fraud...

Valid point, but if the police tell them it's fraud (and their own fraud dept can quite easily confirm it by tracking where the funds go).

Then what grounds do they have ?

If I buy something on a CC and it doesn't arrive I can get the money back. It looks as if they just feel they can get away with it so they do nothing!

JuicyJesus

Jon_01 wrote: »

Valid point, but if the police tell them it's fraud (and their own fraud dept can quite easily confirm it by tracking where the funds go).

Then what grounds do they have ?

If I buy something on a CC and it doesn't arrive I can get the money back. It looks as if they just feel they can get away with it so they do nothing!

The problem is that there are no such protections built into the bank transfer system, and they've never claimed that there are. While Visa and MasterCard have chargeback schemes and fraud protection, bank transfers don't. They've accepted your request to transfer funds to another person, and they've got no other interest in (or knowledge of) the underlying transaction itself.

The answer you get will be the same with all banks. If you're buying on eBay, the safest way is PayPal, which does provide fraud protection.

jonesMUFCforever

there is a 100% probability that the money was withdrawn within minutes of it hitting the Halifax account so even if they were able to reverse the transfer the funds are not there.
Is it fair that Halifax should pay for you son to be conned?

Lokolo

Jon_01 wrote: »

How can the banks justify a none reversible system when fraud can be proven?

Because of the cost I imagine.

Jon_01

Ok, I get it. Historicity there's no fraud protection in transfers, yes...
Which is why scammers and fraudsters ask you to pay by BT!

So, I'm guessing that the bank know that this system is being used to take money from people? Are there any moves afoot to do anything about it? Or is it a area where they think they can just ignore it until some legislation is forced on them.

Surely if the system is so flawed something should be done about it ?

Biggles

Jon_01 wrote: »

How can the banks justify a none reversible system when fraud can be proven?

In what way can fraud be 'proven'?

Have the bank's staff been round and searched your house to confirm that the goods weren't received? No.

Has anyone been convicted? No.

But you want the bank to be judge and jury? Yes.

Jon_01

Biggles wrote: »

In what way can fraud be 'proven'?

But you want the bank to be judge and jury? Yes.

No, not really.

I've found with the minimum of research that the guy appears to be a serial scammer. The fact that funds are coming from all over into his acc and then (I guess) going straight out (which I would have thought would have flagged up on the banks systems).

The police should have the power to freeze his acc's until the issue is resolved.
And I don't mean on the word of one person, that would quite clearly be abused.
But if they receive many reports of fraudulent activity they ought to be able to approach the bank and do something !

Fraud can be proven in any number of ways.

Jon_01

jonesMUFCforever wrote: »

there is a 100% probability that the money was withdrawn within minutes of it hitting the Halifax account so even if they were able to reverse the transfer the funds are not there.
Is it fair that Halifax should pay for you son to be conned?

No it not fair that the bank should pay.

BUT, if he'd paid by CC they'd have to cover it. Its the system that give you protection if you pay one way and not if you pay another that appears odd?

Surely, a bank is a bank. Either you're covered in some way or your not?
Maybe a little simplistic I agree, but why protect CC and nothing else? All that happens is that all the scammers and fraudsters move to the system that lets them get away with it ??

BoGoF

Pity your son didn't do this 'minimum of research' then..

Personally I would never transfer funds to somebody I have never had any dealings with just because it is far too risky.