Phantom Natwest Account - Please Help

Ballard

EarthBoy wrote: »

I'd just explain that I knew it wasn't mine, which is why I hadn't spent/moved the money, and I was waiting for the sender to realise their "mistake" and take the money back.

Fair enough. You'd have your £100 to pay for a lawyer so you couldn't really lose.

EarthBoy

TheBanker wrote: »

Each to their own but I find it hard to believe that a police officer investigating a crime would believe this, if the money had been paid into an account which had been opened by the criminal but then moved by you.

That would indeed be suspicious, but I've already said that I wouldn't move it. I wouldn't touch it, I'd just leave it where it was until it was asked for.

TheBanker

EarthBoy wrote: »

That would indeed be suspicious, but I've already said that I wouldn't move it. I wouldn't touch it, I'd just leave it where it was until it was asked for.

By "it" I meant the account not the money.

EarthBoy

I understand what you're getting at now, I think we were talking at crossed purposes.

With regard to an account being opened that I didn't know about, I never said that I'd use or move it; I just asked the question about whether moving it would foil an attempt to use it for fraud.

As for mysterious money being paid into my account, I was referring to an existing account that I already use, not a new one that I didn't ask for.

jonesMUFCforever

I will guarantee that if it is not an inside job (ie a family member or someone close enough to OP) any money credited to account would be transferred out almost immediately - with FP limits now £25k it would be easy to do.
This is how the OP's credit files will be trashed for years - he might not have a Nat West account but CIFAS marker for first party fraud would probably mean his real bank closing his real account and he would find it impossible for any bank to open an account for him.
This is why he needs to speak to Nat West fraud IMMEDIATELY - get the account blocked and then closed.
They will investigate how the account was opened and take appropriate action - OP will never be told this information but at least he will avoid his credit files being trashed.

Ballard

EarthBoy wrote: »

I understand what you're getting at now, I think we were talking at crossed purposes.

With regard to an account being opened that I didn't know about, I never said that I'd use or move it; I just asked the question about whether moving it would foil an attempt to use it for fraud.

As for mysterious money being paid into my account, I was referring to an existing account that I already use, not a new one that I didn't ask for.

If I've got this right you're saying that if funds arrive in your account you wouldn't return them as a matter of course but would simply sit on them. I'm unsure of the legal aspects of this (although I have a fair idea) but morally I think that that would be reprehensible.

I may well be misjudging you but there have been umpteen posts on here from people who've paid money to a slightly wrong account number and are struggling to get their money back. I think that everyone should return any funds received in error as soon as possible. I've never received unwarranted money but I know without any shadow of doubt that I would call my bank as soon as I spotted it, regardless of the amount.

jamesd

EarthBoy wrote: »

With regard to an account being opened that I didn't know about, I never said that I'd use or move it; I just asked the question about whether moving it would foil an attempt to use it for fraud.

Sort of. The criminals wouldn't be able to get at the new account but they would know your name and address. There are already some crimes where the crooks get into homes and beat people until they agree to go to an ATM and take out money. You'd have given people who are already criminals an extra incentive to be unhappy with you and only one way to get at their money. Not the best of ideas.

Accounts getting blocked is just a fact of life. Account holders "stealing" their money by moving it to another account before they can get it is a different matter.

EarthBoy

Ballard wrote: »

If I've got this right you're saying that if funds arrive in your account you wouldn't return them as a matter of course but would simply sit on them. I'm unsure of the legal aspects of this (although I have a fair idea) but morally I think that that would be reprehensible..

Of course I'd return the money if I knew where it came from, or if the bank asked for it back, but if I didn't know who had paid it in I don't think I should have to go to the trouble of investigating and finding out.

Previous posters on here have said that when they've paid money into the wrong account, their bank has to contact the bank it's been paid into and ask the account holder if they can take the money back. It's only right that the person who made the mistake should do the donkey work, so I'd wait until the bank notified me of the mistake and let them reclaim the money.

Ballard

A quick Google tells me that not returning funds received in error would be an offence under the Theft Act of 1968.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/24A

24 Dishonestly retaining a wrongful credit.

(1) A person is guilty of an offence if—

(a) a wrongful credit has been made to an account kept by him or in respect of which he has any right or interest;

(b) he knows or believes that the credit is wrongful; and

(c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.

EarthBoy

Ballard wrote: »

(c) he dishonestly fails to take such steps as are reasonable in the circumstances to secure that the credit is cancelled.

Yes, but the Theft Act doesn't define what's "reasonable", so it would be up to the courts to decide whether leaving the money alone until it was reclaimed was reasonable or not. Also, they would have to prove that my failure to take such action was done "dishonestly".

What exactly, is dishonest about waiting until the owner asks for the money back?