Santander trying to steal £14,200 from me

Azelphur

JuicyJesus wrote: »

And your opinion is wrong. Not "I disagree", you are just plain wrong on that point. When fraud is reported, the defrauded customer's bank will contact the receiving bank and ask them to return the money if possible. End of. The logical conclusion of your opinion, were it actually fact, would be banks needlessly gifting money to fraudsters.

You are entitled to your opinion but it does not coincide with reality.

To me the logical conclusion is that the banks would do more to secure the accounts such that they don't get scammed. This is why we have 2fa, phone verification, etc, to stop unauthorised access to accounts.

If you don't make the bank responsible for looking after your money, then they have no incentive to so.

techspec

JuicyJesus wrote: »

And your opinion is wrong. Not "I disagree", you are just plain wrong on that point. When fraud is reported, the defrauded customer's bank will contact the receiving bank and ask them to return the money if possible. End of. The logical conclusion of your opinion, were it actually fact, would be banks needlessly gifting money to fraudsters.

You are entitled to your opinion but it does not coincide with reality.

Tha bank HAS gifted the money to the frauduster.

Then they made the OP pay for it.

Jharkinton

Azelphur wrote: »

80 bitcoins

Why would you even be trading in Bitcoins??

According to wikipedia:

Bitcoin is accepted in trade by merchants and individuals in many parts of the world. Similar to other currencies, illicit drug and gambling transactions constitute some of its commercial usage.

No wonder your being investigated for fraudulent activity and has assets frozen. lol

grumbler

What about "merchants and individuals in many parts of the world" then? Why are they not being investigated and have their assets frozen?

gb12345

grumbler wrote: »

What about "merchants and individuals in many parts of the world" then? Why are they not being investigated and have their assets frozen?

Not quite sure what post you are replying to since you didn't quote it.

Merchants have "Merchant Accounts", so it is accepted that they may be targetted by the occasional fraudulent transaction, so with them only the fraudulent transactions are ring-fenced to allow them to continue trading (of course a large number of fraudulent transactions may trigger a larger investigation).

For an individual, receiving a one off fraudulent payment - it would probably be assumed that they were an innocent victim and again only the specific payment would be reversed.

Unfortunately, the OP doesn't fit either of those two categories. He was using a personal account and receiving regular large payments, one of which was fraudulent - therefore the bank have questioned his involvement in money laundering and frozen his account while they investigate.

grumbler

It was obvious that I was replying to the previous post as I did quote it and "merchants and individuals in many parts of the world" was easily traceable.

That said, in this case I don't see how the OP is different from "an individual, receiving a one off fraudulent payment" and "an innocent victim". After all he was not accused of receiving multiple payments or of using the account for business.

And I don't see what difference would it have made if the account was a "Merchant Account". £7K would have been lost similarly.

gb12345

grumbler wrote: »

That said, in this case I don't see how the OP is different from "an individual, receiving a one off fraudulent payment" and "an innocent victim". After all he was not accused of receiving multiple payments or of using the account for business.

The OP is totally different from a normal innocent victim. First off he was trading using a personal account - so that has broken the T&C he agreed to.

Then one of the number of large payments he has received and sent has turned out to be fraudulent. This has likely triggered money laundering concerns for Santander when they noticed the way the account was being used, so they have followed their normal money laundering procedures and froze the account while they investigated. They obviously eventually decided that he wasn't involved in Money Laundering as they have then given him all of the money except for that relating to the fraudulent transfer.

grumbler wrote: »

And I don't see what difference would it have made if the account was a "Merchant Account". £7K would have been lost similarly.

The merchant would have had the £7k reclaimed and (if they had despatched the goods) had to accept the loss/claimed on their insurance/taken whatever action they could to reclaim the money from the scammer (they would possibly be able to identify them as the goods would have been delivered somewhere) as applicable. The OP is only left with the first of those options

The fact remains that the OP was using a personal account for business transactions and has been caught out. The person he should be chasing for his £7k is the person who scammed him, but unfortunately, because of the anonymous nature of bitcoins he doesn't have a clue who that is

grumbler

gb12345 wrote: »

The OP is totally different from a normal innocent victim. First off he was trading using a personal account - so that has broken the T&C he agreed to.

The money was taken not because of the alleged breach of the T&C.

Then one of the number of large payments he has received and sent has turned out to be fraudulent. This has likely triggered money laundering concerns for Santander when they noticed the way the account was being used, so they have followed their normal money laundering procedures and froze the account while they investigated. They obviously eventually decided that he wasn't involved in Money Laundering as they have then given him all of the money except for that relating to the fraudulent transfer.

You certainly failed to read the thread. The investigation was triggered by the request of the originating bank which customer claimed that the transfer was fraudulent.

The merchant would have had the £7k reclaimed and (if they had despatched the goods) had to accept the loss/claimed on their insurance/taken whatever action they could to reclaim the money from the scammer (they would possibly be able to identify them as the goods would have been delivered somewhere) as applicable. The OP is only left with the first of those options

Insurances are optional, not compulsory, and cost money. And the "merchants" I quoted were accepting bitcoins. So, there is no need to identify anybody. If the OP had a merchant account like you suggested this wouldn't help him as he sold bitcoins, not accepted them.

The fact remains that the OP was using a personal account for business transactions and has been caught out.

He was caught out, but not for this. And having a business account wouldn't have changed anything in this case.

The person he should be chasing for his £7k is the person who scammed him, but unfortunately, because of the anonymous nature of bitcoins he doesn't have a clue who that is

Everyone here seems to agree about this.

gb12345

grumbler wrote: »

The money was taken not because of the alleged breach of the T&C.

It is a relevent factor though as it shows that the OP is not a standard account holder who has been the victim of fraud. He has contributed to the problem by has mismanagement of his account. Something that could also possibly lead to the OP's account being closed in the near future for breaking the T&C (if he doesn't close it himself).

If the OP had been selling his car and foolishly taken a bank transfer for the payment then let the "purchaser" drive off with it, and the transfer found to be fraudulent, then the bank would have reclaimed the money and he would have been left with no car and down the 7k, but he is unlikely to have been investigated or had his account frozen.

The only additional thing that has happened to the OP is that his account was frozen while he was investigated.

grumbler wrote: »

The investigation was triggered by the request of the originating bank which customer claimed that the transfer was fraudulent.

And you know this how? All the OP knows is that his account was frozen for some reason and he was told by the branch staff that it was due to a fraudulent transaction. No one (except Santander's fraud dept) knows for real why the account was frozen. It is unlikely to be just because he received 1 fraudulent payment - a more likely scenario is that the receipt of that payment has made Santander to question why a personal account that previously had no irregular transactions (I assume) is now having large payments in and out for various different people (possibly) in different countries.

grumbler wrote: »

Insurances are optional, not compulsory, and cost money. And the "merchants" I quoted were accepting bitcoins. So, there is no need to identify anybody.[/

And as I gave three possible options - a merchant chosing not to pay for insurance would therefore not have that option open to them. Also, as they were accepting bitcoins, no one would be investigating the merchant then would they? They would have been paid in bitcoins, which would have been unreversible and anonymous - so they have no worries about money laundering or fraud investigtions as no one would be able to identify either of the parties involved in the transaction.

grumbler wrote: »

If the OP had a merchant account like you suggested this wouldn't help him as he sold bitcoins, not accepted them.

He was caught out, but not for this. And having a business account wouldn't have changed anything in this case.

If he had a proper business account and the bank were aware of what that account was being used for and accepted that (which Lloyds (from memory) seem to have done now he has opened a business account) then they would be less likely to freeze the account for 1 single transaction - although that remains to be seen for something as risky as bitcoin trading.

grumbler

I rest my case.