Santander trying to steal £14,200 from me

JuicyJesus

grumbler wrote: »

Why not if they don't have an adequate security in place, especially for transfers to new recipients?

Because for all Santander know OP is in on the fraud?

grumbler

JuicyJesus wrote: »

Because for all Santander know OP is in on the fraud?

I edited my post, but no, Santander don't know this. If they knew they should have reported him to the police. Have they?

JuicyJesus

grumbler wrote: »

I edited my post, but no, Santander don't know this. If they knew they should have reported him to the police. Have they?

I don't know, because I'm not Santander, and they sure as hell wouldn't tell the OP if they were going to.

innovate

Azelphur wrote: »

So, it seems bank transfers are reversible now, stop using them would be my recommentation.

Now you are becoming quite irrational.

You have played with fire, you got burnt. This doesn't mean that people who are not playing with fire will also get burnt.

I have happily been doing dozens of bank transfers myself, with only one problem ever, and this was caused by a completely stupid mistake I made myself. I am just off to make another one (transfer, not mistake....so I hope, lol).

My recommendation is that people continue to use bank transfers - using the usual safeguards such as double and triple checking the sort code and account number, and not sending money to complete strangers and/or traders whose businesses appear to be untraceable.

Azelphur

dalesrider wrote: »

Bank transfers have always been reclaimable when fraud is involved.
If the person buying your bitcoins had hacked into someone elses account and used their money to pay you. Do you think its fair that the hacked account holder should stand the loss. Or even either of the banks?

I do yes, It is the senders banks responsibility to authenticate them, either the account holder or the bank has been negligent, and it doesn't fall to me to bail people (or banks) out for their own error.

innovate wrote: »

Now you are becoming quite irrational.

You have played with fire, you got burnt. This doesn't mean that people who are not playing with fire will also get burnt.

I have happily been doing dozens of bank transfers myself, with only one problem ever, and this was caused by a completely stupid mistake I made myself. I am just off to do another one.

My recommendation is that people continue to use bank transfers - using the usual safeguards such as double and triple checking the sort code and account number, and not sending money to complete strangers and/or traders whose businesses appear to be untraceable.

I meant in the context of online trading (ebay, gumtree, etc). Although I see no reason why this type of attack wouldn't work in person, either.

gb12345

Azelphur wrote: »

I do yes, It is the senders banks responsibility to authenticate them, either the account holder or the bank has been negligent, and it doesn't fall to me to bail people (or banks) out for their own error.

There are many ways that "apparent" bank transfers can take place without the bank or the real account holder knowing anything about it.

Go and Google "account flashing" - that is just one way I can think of off the top of my head.

The fact is that you have received a fraudulent transaction and have no proof that the person who sent the money to you is who they claim to be. The buck stops with you I'm afraid.

innovate

Azelphur wrote: »

I meant in the context of online trading (ebay, gumtree, etc). Although I see no reason why this type of attack wouldn't work in person, either.

Yep agree mostly - that's what I meant by not sending money to complete strangers and/or traders whose businesses appear to be untraceable.

Though I would, for instance, generally be completely relaxed about paying a german ebay trader with thousands of positive feedbacks because Germany has used bank transfers for decades. I wouldn't be relaxed paying an ebayer with just a handful of positive feedbacks by bank transfer, regardless of nationality.

And I wouldn't pay any person who I know nothing about by bank transfer, regardless of nationality. If I did, I'd be playing with fire, and shouldn't be surprised if it all goes t*ts up.

JuicyJesus

innovate wrote: »

My recommendation is that people continue to use bank transfers - using the usual safeguards such as double and triple checking the sort code and account number, and not sending money to complete strangers and/or traders whose businesses appear to be untraceable.

And also to not accept them for untraceable equivalents of cash from people you don't actually know the identity of.

Which is the main issue here.

Azelphur wrote: »

I do yes, It is the senders banks responsibility to authenticate them, either the account holder or the bank has been negligent, and it doesn't fall to me to bail people (or banks) out for their own error.

So let's assume for a moment that you're not the whiter-than-white pure-as-the-driven-snow young lad that we are now all painfully familiar with, but are in fact involved with the fraud and received the money into your account for your own use because as well as being a fraudster you are also an idiot. Indeed, there is no evidence that you did otherwise other than vague evidence that you paid out some electronic currency (being charitable) to someone else who may also be you, we don't know because Bitcoin is anonymous. Of course, this evidence also comes from you and is easily falsifiable, and by receiving fraudulent money and making noises about drawing it all your credibility is already very low as it is. On the other hand, the sending bank have the defrauded customer's signed declaration that they did not authorise the instruction to pay £7,200 to your account and, given that they are pursuing it, will have discounted virtually all reasons for them to not consider it fraud (such as which PC was used, what security measures were passed, usual account activity, whether the customer is likely to have entered into this kind of transaction...) because they have to steel themselves for a potentially costly reimbursement of their customer if they can't recover the funds (but luckily in this case they can) and so will want to eliminate every possibility that their customer is lying and that they shouldn't really be refunding them.

And they should let you keep the money? Pull the other one. Santander only have your word that you are not any of the above. Most normal people do not get involved in fraud. And while it may have been the sending bank's responsibility to check its customer's instructions, that doesn't mean that they should effectively give you £7,200, not least because, again, they have no proof that you are not involved.

Again - you have no hope.

innovate

JuicyJesus wrote: »

And also to not accept them for untraceable equivalents of cash from people you don't actually know the identity of.

Which is the main issue here.

Yes of course. I should have said the same diligence should apply to receiving funds as to sending funds.

kirkbyinfurnesslad_2

I have never read so much tripe in all my life