Met Chief says that banks shouldn't necessarily refund due to fraud

Marktheshark

Its propagandise, banks want people to have it drilled in by repeating the lie often enough that when someone steals money from your bank you are the victim not the bank.

Thrugelmir

Ballard wrote: »

Most people seem to be viewing this along the lines of the banks are losing money...

The banks aren't losing money. Other customers will be footing the bill.

Kim_13

takman wrote: »

I can understand the point he is making because I have heard of so many people loosing money due to obvious scams and tricks. When the banks refund the "victims" then they are effective funding criminals and their activities. So anything that will stop the criminals getting money illegally should be seriously considered.

Of course, and if it was something that should be an obvious scam such as someone from the 'bank' phoning and asking for full login details, then fair enough.

I doubt any such legislation will reduce fraud much, though. The majority of fraudsters won't have a moral compass that is such that they can't steal a person's life savings, but stealing the bank's money is fine. As long as they get money, they don't care where it comes from, surely? If they had a conscience they wouldn't be breaking the law.

gunsandbanjos

I agree to an extent, where people have been negligent with their data why should the bank take the loss?

CLAPTON

I guess Hogan-Howe would take the same stance if an old lady was conned by a faux utility worker turning up on her door: after all she shouldn't have let them in.

bigadaj

It's still an arbitrary point.

Many people haven't been refunded from phishing attempts, it depends on the circumstances.

Making people more liable and banks less so could well reduce the amino of Internet commerce as well, whilst hundreds of millions are lost in fraud the knock on effect in terms of reduction in sales and consequently bank fees may well out weight this.

ceredigion

The banks wont change the current system, why ?. They want us all online, in order to convince a largely apathetic population this is a good idea they have to guarantee the system. On top of that, the money they lose to online fraud although substantial in our eyes, is small in regard to the savings made by closing branches and losing staff.

Cornucopia

There will always be people who are careless and those who do not understand how to achieve a reasonable level of security. At the same time, the scams are constantly evolving, and some of them would appear to be organised and of a serious scale.

In which case it's extremely disappointing that the banks have not done more to prevent this and bring the perpetrators to justice. I'm not an expert on international banking, but I simply don't see how the Banks can allow the "Microsoft" scam to go on and on, for example, without blocking associated merchant identities. And if new merchant identities are being churned out by the scammers' local banks then something needs to be done about their approval policies and any associated fraud.

diamonds

The banks are as poo as the MET, I forwarded a phising email to Barclays dedicated fraud email, never heard a thing back...

HornetSaver

The problem with these comments isn't the principle (the more precautions we all take, the less lucrative fraud becomes, the less likely fraudsters are to target the UK, and the less money that could have been lent or offered as additional interest by banks is wasted on fraud-related work).

The problem is that when you're dealing with phishing and the like then proving that you have taken reasonable precautions is difficult to do, even when you have.