Lloyds Bank Account Hacked. Acc closed & cannot get money - can that be right?

GingerFurball_2

moneysavvy35 wrote: »

Whilst I agree in principle with the bank having to protect thier accounts and possibly warn other institutions - surely they would have to prove his guilt?

They have, it's his name on the account.

grumbler

colsten wrote: »

Never mind any basic principles - it is now some employee in a bank that can decide whether somebody is guilty, without the accused having any means whatsoever to defend themselves.

With the various terrorist threats, things are not going to get better anytime soon.

Banks would, however, no doubt be able to produce masses of circumstantial evidence from a variety of fraud cases that would probably convince a jury that the boy in this particular case is not wholly innocent.

The point was that it's the bank that has to prove the guilt, not the boy the innocence.
Re the *circumstantial* evidence, it works well inside unaccountable banks, but is unlikely to work in a court.

GingerFurball wrote: »

They have, it's his name on the account.

Generally, this doesn't prove anything. An account holder can be a victim, not a criminal.

colsten

grumbler wrote: »

The point was that it's the bank that has to prove the guilt, not the boy the innocence.
Re the *circumstantial* evidence, it works well inside unaccountable banks, but is unlikely to work in a court.

Lots of people have been found guilty in Court based on circumstantial evidence, however much they protested their innocence.

antrobus

grumbler wrote: »

The point was that it's the bank that has to prove the guilt, not the boy the innocence. ....

Unless something has radically changed whilst I wasn't paying attention, I think you'll find that banks don't have the power to charge people with criminal offences, so there is no requirement for them to prove anyone's "guilt".

grumbler

"Guilt" isn't a synonym of "criminal offence".
The son sues the bank for libel / defamation of character.
The bank has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what they reported about the son was true.

If someone publicly labels me as a fraudster the onus doesn't lie on me to prove that I am not.

antrobus

grumbler wrote: »

"Guilt" isn't a synonym of "criminal offence".
The son sues the bank for libel / defamation of character.
The bank has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that what they reported about the son was true.

You are very confused.

1) The son can't sue for defamation, because the bank have not published the allegation.

2) Even if they had, they would not have "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that what they said was true, they would only have to prove on the "balance of probablities" that what they said was true.

You don't seem to understand that a different standard of proof applies in civil as compared to criminal cases.

grumbler

antrobus wrote: »

You are very confused.

1) The son can't sue for defamation, because the bank have not published the allegation.

The main concern of the OP is possible blacklisting in national database(s).

It doesn't make sense to moan just because of some closed account.

2) Even if they had, they would not have "prove beyond reasonable doubt" that what they said was true, they would only have to prove on the "balance of probablities" that what they said was true.

OK, I stand corrected, but this doesn't make much difference in this case.
My point remains: it's the bank that has to prove, not the son.

antrobus

grumbler wrote: »

....OK, I stand corrected, but this doesn't make much difference in this case.
My point remains: it's the bank that has to prove, not the son.

Proof only matters in terms of legal process.

If the bank were to take civil action against the son in order to recover their losses, then the burden of proof would be on them.

If the son were to take civil action against the bank to claim for damages for some reason, then he burden of proof would be on him.

He who claims must prove.

grumbler

antrobus wrote: »

If the son were to take civil action against the bank to claim for damages for some reason, then he burden of proof would be on him.

OK, I am no expert, but this makes no sense to me.

If a bank labels me as, say, a fraudster, how on earth can I prove that I am not a fraudster? And why should I?

Yes, I have to prove the damages resulting from the bank's wrongful actions. They have to prove that the actions weren't wrongful.

DCFC79

csgohan4 wrote: »

LLoyds are someone I will be avoiding then in future

Your loss then, the bank have done no wrong.