MSE News: MPs demand answers from banks on 'understated' fraud figures

agarnett

Ah, limited vocabulary / limited intellect / gregarious type doing best to move as part of a single organism / can't survive outside the prevailing culture which contains the food gathering bit that has become the habit? A team player a bit like that ugly deep sea thing they found recently?

Once the unimaginable gets discovered down in the dark and exposed, it'd better scuttle off and stay there. I don't suppose now we know the sort of profile we are looking for it'd stand much of chance of survival in the shallows where most other organisms go about their normal complimentary day to day business in the light of the day.

But can it transform itself into something else and turn up again in some other ugly form ?

Gentoo365

It's actually of benefit to the customer that it is 'the banks money'. As that means that the fraud is actually against the bank.

Otherwise people would not be 'refunded' every time a fraud occurs.

What is actually the case is that the bank owes the customer an amount (their balance). If due to fraud the bank gives money to someone else, this does not relieve them of the debt to the actual customer.

If you want a bank to keep your money, and you want to retain ownership then you would need to rent a safety deposit box, and place the money in their safe. Paying a monthly fee.

If instead you want to lend the bank the money, so it can do what it wishes with it, and in return you get either interest or payment services, then you can open an account.

If you disagree with the idea of fractional reserve banking, then invest your money via a peer to peer lending company. That way there is no leverage, however there is the risk of losing it all.

You take a choice. Normally people prefer the banks to take the risks so that they can have certainty.

Gentoo365

Also, this is an interesting case of 'victim blaming'.

You would not blame the individual whose house was burgled, or blame the person who was scammed. Yet because banks are 'bad' they are considered at fault for allowing criminals to steal from them.

agarnett

Gentoo365 wrote: »

Also, this is an interesting case of 'victim blaming'.

Ah yes, the banks are the victims of all the fraud that occurs via their systems? We, the customers are completely safe, aren't we? Even though fraud is rife.

But there's a funny thing. Fraud is a criminal offence, isn't it? So answer this: why do police not investigate any of the billions in annual fraud losses perpitrated via bank systems, or even want to be notified?

You would not blame the individual whose house was burgled, or blame the person who was scammed.

Oh yes I would if the person burgled or scammed was robbed of money entrusted to them for safekeeping on a commercial basis. How could a simple burglar get in and, unnoticed until the money was found missing, steal money from a bank ? That would be my first question.

Yet because banks are 'bad'...

Yes quite so. That's even more reason to point the finger at the banks and ask "What the hell are you playing at now ?"