Bank Fraud! Santander!!!

Dr_Cuckoo3

MPH80 wrote: »

1) Request exactly which ATMs the withdrawals were made at - and ensure that the CCTV footage is obtained for those ATMs promptly. Many organisations will wipe CCTV on a 7 day or 14 day cycle.

2) Request Santander to produce the chip verification codes.

Santander statements/online banking shows the geographic location of ATM withdrawals , so the OP will know whether the withdrawals are local

As far as multiple ATM's in the same town/street are concerned , Santander will know which ATM operator (if it isn't shown on statements due to space limitations etc) and some can be deciphered from the format (eg HSBC ATM's quote the sort code in the ATM location narrative)

ecombo wrote: »

Find out what ATM's it was and there locations. Bank should tell you this.

The OP knows the ATM location in any event

noob33294 wrote: »

Hi,
2) I was not even a mile close to cash point where it was supposedly taken out

MPH80

Dr_Cuckoo3 wrote: »

The OP knows the ATM location in any event

Yes - but us knowing how local these cashpoints are to the OP would help us in the diagnosis of what might have happened.

Cashpoints 300 miles away would strongly point to a fraudster - cashpoints nearer might support the 'lift and return'.

The current info seems to suggest the cashpoints were local ('I was not even a mile close' and references to going into town) - oh - and the wickes branch.

M.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

I don't think you are helping with your diagnosis MPH80.

You have implied that the suggestion of impersonators calling the bank to arrange replacement cards is unlikely. It is exactly the opposite. It is heavy duty organised crime. Do you really think that our personal security details as used for "passing security" and held on bank computers are bombproof? You cannot be serious. How many people do you know who are ex bank workers? Rather a lot I would think. How many different databases contain your dob and full name and address? How many different organisations have access to CRA data? How much staff turnover is there in all these organisations? How much do you think the street price of this personal data happens to be currently? Why do you think that junkies don't seem to be nicking car radios and breaking into houses much anymore? Because there are easier pickings where neither the thieves nor the thieved from seem to get visibly hurt. Because there is a need for footsloggers in organised card fraud and someone has to dip letter boxes opportunisticly for bank statements and for cards and PIN reminders that have been triggered by smooth talkers on telephones earlier in the week.

You talk of draining an account dry - why would that always be an overriding tactic? Do ants totally drain aphids dry to the point they shrivel up and die? No. Do farmers suck cows dry and then slaughter them? No. Do you stick your hand inside the goose that lays golden eggs? No.

Once you have a working card and PIN, why would you take it 300 miles away? Why even bother to take a two-stop bus ride? When I was done over, they used my card quite locally. Modest amounts like £100 at first.

Where do you get your information? Is it passed down to you in your job or are you speaking from experience of personal involvement in fraud cases?

Why do you poo-poo the Wickes transaction? Wickes stock power tools and other easily fenced concentrated mid-range value items.

silverwhistle

TurnUpForTheBooks wrote: »

Why do you poo-poo the Wickes transaction? Wickes stock power tools and other easily fenced concentrated mid-range value items.

And crowbars and chisels... Joking aside, it might be useful to know what that £25 transaction represented.

MPH80

I haven't, in any way, denied that there is the possibility of this being an industrial level scam. I haven't, in any way, denied that there is the possibilities of the security of the bank being overcome.

What I have done is outline the hurdles that need to be overcome for the fraud you are proposing and then outline the hurdles that need to be overcome for the 'lift and replace' fraud.

I'm reaching the conclusion I'm reaching based on the number of hurdles (thus the path of least resistance) and the evidence that the OP has presented.

What is not helpful is mistaken statements like this:

AFAIK ALL ATMs use ONLY the magnetic stripe. Why else does the card need to go into the machine - to check that the details on the CHIP correspond to an obsolete magnetic stripe perhaps ?

My understanding on changing the PIN is that it used only to be possible at your own bank for some reason

Which demonstrate a lack of understanding of how chip and pin works - and thus how it helps protects against fraud.

(For educational purposes - the pin can be altered on the chip at almost any LINK ATM - http://www.link.co.uk/Cardholders/Pages/PINchange.aspx - and the PIN is stored as a one-way hash on the card that can be verified against, but not extracted).

and then go on accusational and inflammatory rants like this:

How dare Santander stitch up a customer

We pay via the various bank charges and rip off interest rates

I, personally, look for the simplest explanation but I'm keeping an open mind - hence my further questions.

If the OP comes back and says 'I know exactly where the card was when each transaction took place' then I'll cross 'lift and replace' off my list. He hasn't said that.

If the OP comes back and says 'Santander have told me they sent a second card without my authorisation' - I'll be more inclined to believe the postal intercept fraud.

A postal intercept may well take place nearby - but the fraudster is far more likely to clean an account out. Repeated transactions may well be noticed quickly and prevented and a fraudster will want maximum payout. They may not start with the whole balance - but they'll try to go there pretty quick before their avenue and investment is closed.

To get access to this card requires investment to get personal details, investment and risk in contacting the bank and investment in intercepting the card. To do this for only £325 when they could have had the whole account balance - and the risk of it being detected within the month (as it was) and closed - is what makes this seem less likely.

I'm not going to justify my knowledge or experience here. But if you want to carry on this debate civilly - now we've both attacked each other's helpfulness - we can do so and perhaps we can get some more questions together that might help the OP.

And if you don't think my posts are helpful - there's a handy 'report' button you can apply.

POPPYOSCAR

So glad I do not even have a card and therefore do not use ATMs.

I manage perfectly well without one.

jamesd

It's a bit futile trying to work out just what happened at this point. Santander:

1. Can pull the tapes and see who did it and the poster in assisting the police can tell them who it is if it's someone they know.
2. Can check the chip details to do things like see whether the transaction counter in the chip is consistent with it being the poster's card or whether it's a different one.
3. Can check what other information their specific chip implementation might be telling them.

Given the location pattern here it seems most likely that it's someone taking and returning the card. And that hence when presented with photographs, the poster could identify the person to the police or help them to identify them.

Lots of opportunities for family members and sometimes co-workers to see and learn a PIN and we've seen the FOS rule that a cardholder is not liable for such things until after they had some knowledge of compromised PIN. Here, noob33294 promptly notified the bank as soon as they were aware so we can expect the FOS to rule in their favour if it ever gets there.

We've also seen the FOS rule that if the cardholder told someone the PIN the cardholder is liable.

TurnUpForTheBooks_2

What's all this "if the FOS rule" stuff? Last time I read about whos who at FOS, there was an ex director of FOS running part of the show at Santander :rotfl:

Why on earth are we condoning for even a moment the action of a bank directly against one of their customers who has suffered loss through card fraud?

Why are we even bothering to try to analyse the systems ? Let's get this problem the right way round, please.

The bank gave the customer a card linked to the customer's account and guaranteed the security of the system. We all know that it has become as flakey as hell and that we the customers pay for the insecurity, yet of course the bank (like they all do) makes all manner of distracting claims about how foolproof CHIP & PIN is without even acknowledging that the card can still dispense cash by bypassing CHIP & PIN, and also without acknowledging that daily hundreds or maybe thousands of cards and PINs may easily have got into the wrong hands via their lost and stolen and damaged telephone centres and chosen means of delivery. Now the bank have instantly judged that no part of their system has caused a loss to their customer and told him or her to whistle for it.

And they have plenty of helpers in these forums willing to line up and bamboozle the customer further.

I sometimes despair at the defining characteristics of typical posters on MSE on anything to do with UK business culture within which we are invited to imagine they take a full part.

The bank is 100% liable for these losses the moment the customer signs a form confirming that did not make the transactions or directly cause them to be made. If the bank is accusing the customer of lying then they should be made to make a police report against the customer or shut up and pay up.

It's a disgrace to call these organisations in any way British. Their cultural values are from somewhere else entirely and I don't mean Spain.

typistretired

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

So glad I do not even have a card and therefore do not use ATMs.

I manage perfectly well without one.

How do you manage to get cash? From my experience when you get cash over the counter you need to show your debit card and they write the number on the back of the cheque.

MPH80

TurnUpForTheBooks wrote: »

The bank is 100% liable for these losses the moment the customer signs a form confirming that did not make the transactions or directly cause them to be made.

No - they aren't in all cases.

If the card is a debit card - and the victim isn't in their overdraft - and the bank can show they've been grossly negligent with their PIN then the cardholder can be made liable.

Otherwise the liability is laid out in T&Cs.

If the card is a credit card - or it's a debit card and the victim is in their overdraft - then the liability is laid out in the consumer credit act 1974 - and the victim's maximum liability is £50.

Both of these should be caveated with the fact that if the victim gives the card to someone else to make the transaction - then they are liable even if you didn't authorise them to make additional transactions.

M.