Were Bank

masonic

grumbler wrote: »

Define 'fake'.
Is a bitcoin fake? You can pay with them somewhere, but I don't think that any UK bank accepts cheques in bitcoins.

Bitcoin isn't fake in the sense it is a currency. Like most currencies, it has no intrinsic value, but it functions successfully as a medium of exchange, which is the main criterion of a currency. But there are plenty of genuine currencies a UK bank may turn away that aren't "fake". I'm not aware of any UK bank that would accept payment using a cheque in pesos, kroner or rupees, for example - even genuine cheques that would clear for payment.

But the difference between those currencies and the "Re" is that the "Re" is completely fake in the sense that it is imaginary. In essence a cheque in "Re" is a cheque in "positive vibes that one day the debt will be paid" and is worth just as much.

As others have suggested, I believe everyone who tried to use these cheques did so in the knowledge that their chosen creditor(s) would not get paid. That much was clear. They all knew they were getting involved in a con, but failed to see that they were the intended victim.

My sympathy for those who team up with a shady outfit in order to try to con others, but end up being conned themselves, is pretty limited. I don't believe any honest person would consider going down this route.

colsten

Anyone questioning whether the WeRe Bank cheques are fake should ask themselves whether they themselves would accept one of these cheques as payment for an item they are selling. Heck, you can't even pay the WeRe Bank subscriptions with their cheques. It's such an obvious scam.

grumbler

In this case all FOS rulings are simply laughable because they are far to serious and lengthy for an obvious scam.

antrobus

What happens to you if you fall for this little ruse;

In one recent case, a man faces having his home repossessed after he tried to pay off his £67,500 mortgage with a cheque issued by WeRe Bank. The customer's lender, The Mortgage Works, refused the cheque and the man complained. But the ombudsman ruled The Mortgage Works was entitled to be paid in legal tender and that the cheque was worthless.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-3514575/Many-borrowers-face-losing-home-signing-unauthorised-online-bank.html

Yes, someone did take it to the FOS.:)

The text of the FOS judgement can be found here - http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=104875 - it contains a useful dissection of the, how does it go, 'weapon grade b0llox' dispensed by WeRe, and summarises the complainant's predicament thus;

Mr O has paid cash to WeRe Bank for what is, in effect, a book of worthless pieces of paper designed to look like genuine cheques but which have no actual value and can’t be used to pay debts. In addition, Mr O has signed a contract in the form of a promissory note to pay WeRe Bank £150,000. I don’t know if WeRe Bank will ever call in the promissory note. But I’ve looked at the template on its website and it seems to me to create a legally binding obligation on Mr O to pay the money if WeRe Bank demands it.

ChiefGrasscutter

grumbler wrote: »

In this case all FOS rulings are simply laughable because they are far to serious and lengthy for an obvious scam.

I think they were laying it out in detail to ensure that there was no possibility of the case being taken to court via some no win no fee parasitical lawyer/solicitor.
If they had just written a one sentence rebuttal some smartarris would be on about how the FOS did not take the matter seriously enough and were in dereliction of their duty.

grumbler

ChiefGrasscutter wrote: »

I think they were laying it out in detail to ensure that there was no possibility of the case being taken to court via some no win no fee parasitical lawyer/solicitor.
If they had just written a one sentence rebuttal some smartarris would be on about how the FOS did not take the matter seriously enough and were in dereliction of their duty.

I agree, but my point stands. Scammers must be crazy to take an 'obvious scam' case to a court. If there is even a possibility of court action then it's very far from being 'obvious' to everyone.

masonic

grumbler wrote: »

I agree, but my point stands. Scammers must be crazy to take an 'obvious scam' case to a court. If there is even a possibility of court action then it's very far from being 'obvious' to everyone.

It's a good point. Isn't it a criminal offence to knowingly write a cheque that won't clear? Perhaps the FOS feels an obligation to try to protect the complainant from themselves by spelling out in detail why what they are attempting will not work.

Paul_1977

He is still at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdfu9Yx9VTs

gunsandbanjos

Paul_1977 wrote: »

He is still at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdfu9Yx9VTs

Oh dear...

Doc_N

Fascinating piece about this outfit (and a very interesting interview with 'Peter of England', the 'founder of WeRe bank') on today's You and Yours (BBC Radio 4).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0783lmy

[28 minutes in]