Santander trying to steal £14,200 from me

grumbler

JuicyJesus wrote: »

...BitCoin...is backed by nothing.

So are all modern currencies.

Even fiat currencies have value because you can use them to purchase useful goods and services

https://www.spendbitcoins.com/places/
https://www.bitcoinstore.com/
TBH, I know nothing about bitcoins and the above was a result of 30 seconds google search.

OP is actually the beneficiary of it rather than the victim, given that he's the one complaining that he's not allowed access to money that was stolen from someone else.

The OP was denied access to his own money as well.

Even assuming that the police did get involved, it's certain as hell that a branch manager or a phone jockey wouldn't be dealing with it - their legal department would. And why would they be doing all this in the reception of a police station with people crowding round to listen? Don't the police and their staff have better things to do than eavesdrop? Also how were they calling Santander, and why would Santander take the word of some random person calling them that they were a police officer?

I have to agree on this account.

innovate

JuicyJesus wrote: »

I finally, finally call troll. And also bullsh*t.

Can't but agree with your conclusions there. That entire police story has no credibility whatsoever.

This episode doesn't now reflect too well on the bitcoiners, either.

JuicyJesus

grumbler wrote: »

So are all modern currencies.

No, fiat currencies are as I stated backed by the economies of the countries that issue them. They are backed by the promise that they will be usable to purchase goods and services. Bitcoins are literally backed by nothing - by design, they cannot be backed by anything. Any value they have is assigned to them solely by the people who hold and accept them.

https://www.spendbitcoins.com/places/
https://www.bitcoinstore.com/
TBH, I know nothing about bitcoins and the above was a result of 30 seconds google search.

Did you actually read those links? There's a whole heap of adult and drug paraphernalia, along with some auction houses. Notably absent from things you can buy with Bitcoin are food, shelter, utilities and most other goods and services.

I'll accept JuicyJesus dollars in exchange for things too (namely, sex with any fit twenty-something female relatives you may have - I'll perform that service for the low price of JJ$0.01). That doesn't mean they're a viable currency or it's a good idea to base your entire life around them.

The OP was denied access to his own money as well.

If indeed he was at all. I'm beginning to doubt given the incoherent mess of his last update that any of this happened at all.

But regardless, he received stolen money. He is party to a fraud. Why should he receive any benefit of the doubt from Santander?

Which again is why the story makes no sense.

dalesrider

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Even assuming that the police did get involved, it's certain as hell that a branch manager or a phone jockey wouldn't be dealing with it - their legal department would.

Legal would not touch the police. It would be the same people who are dealing with the OP's case.

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Also how were they calling Santander, and why would Santander take the word of some random person calling them that they were a police officer? .

They would not.
I would expect that their procedure would be the same as ours.
Police call in. You get their name and number. You then get a switchboard number to call them back.
You then reference that number to the known lists of police numbers to ensure that you are going to be talking to the police.
Also I take it that the OP gave his permission for Santander to talk to the police in the 1st place. Or they would simply have said. Sorry send in a DPA request and we will look at the request after talking to the OP and gaining permission.

If I was the OP. I would now be having a letter of complaint to the station commander for ALL & SUNDRY earwigging into a private conversation.

jonesMUFCforever

I will only say two things - if Santander thought there was a chance of fraud or money laundering the freeze on the account would have been total - with no withdrawals at all.
Secondly I agree the police would not have got involved at all.

Troll me thinks.

JuicyJesus

dalesrider wrote: »

Legal would not touch the police. It would be the same people who are dealing with the OP's case.

But still, the chances of them releasing funds after a few minutes talking to a policeman? Not bloody likely right?

gb12345

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Did you actually read those links? There's a whole heap of adult and drug paraphernalia, along with some auction houses. Notably absent from things you can buy with Bitcoin are food, shelter, utilities and most other goods and services.

Or they are sites such as btcshop.org - registered 24/04 - no contact details and domain registration hidden behind a privacy service.

Don't think I'd want to spend my hard earned Bitcoins on a 3 week old site that you have no way of getting a refund from if your goods don't turn up.

grumbler

JuicyJesus wrote: »

No, fiat currencies are as I stated backed by the economies of the countries that issue them. They are backed by the promise that they will be usable to purchase goods and services.

Meaningless words. 100% p.m. and higher inflation is not uncommon in history when the currency was losing "the backed" inflated value very fast. Yes, it was still usable to purchase goods.

But regardless, he received stolen money. He is party to a fraud. Why should he receive any benefit of the doubt from Santander?

Why? Because of the presumption of innocence maybe? Innocent until proven guilty?

Do you really think that in a civilized country it is normal to deprive a presumably innocent person of any access to their money for weeks (or even days)?

opinions4u

Azelphur wrote: »

Had some fun this morning since again I was lied to about the situation being resolved again, called up and apparently they've lost the proof yet again. One of my friends recommended I call the police and report them for theft. I was dubious about it so called the police actionfraud department. They said I should go into my local police station and file a report for theft. I called the bank one last time to give them one last opportunity to resolve it and they refused, so off I went to the police station. On the way to the police station in the car I got a somewhat frantic call from a manager at Santander telling me that it wasn't nescesary, and that I just needed to wait...yea, not happening, so I went into the police station. Talked to a detective about it and explained what actionfraud had told me, and explained what had happened so far. She agree'd with me and I ended up with quite a few people all gathered in the reception of the police station as she called the bank to listen in on what was happening, she called them and they agree'd to release my uncontested funds rather quickly, which is a good start, and I went in branch to withdraw that and it all went smoothly.

The interesting part however, is that Santander lied to a police detective, they said to the police detective that RBS had already had the money returned to them, then when I went in branch to collect they told me that the disputed funds were still being investigated as to whether I could keep them or not, and they are going to put that in writing! so I will soon in theory have written proof that Santander lied to a police detective. Crazy!

Jackanory.

JuicyJesus

grumbler wrote: »

Do you really think that in a civilized country it is normal to deprive a presumably innocent person of any access to their money for weeks (or even days)?

There is no such presumption with fraud cases in banks, especially ones as clear cut as "customer in receipt of stolen funds".