Lloyds Fraud Team - I keep getting picked on!!

diamonds

Ballard wrote: »

I should start by saying that although I have worked in a few banks none of them were retail and I wasn't involved in any areas that checked credit agencies.

I would, however, suggest that checking the file isn't a bad place to look to see whether the customer has recently obtained a lot of credit or opened new accounts. Should this be the case then it might indicate that their customer has had their identity stolen. It's not conclusive by any means but it could potentially stop a fraud.

Your point about reporting to the police is almost correct but the employee should report to the MLRO and it's their job to contact the police.

In any instance of suspected fraud, terrorist etc etc a back office 999 call for police attendance in my opinion would be paramount - catching a criminal in situ who may not be the account holder or terrorist funding with deliberate old contact details. But most organisations dumb down their staff over pro-activity in contradiction with the police asking the public to be vigilant.


Most customers having police in attendance and explaining why they were there in this day and age of risk would be happy to know the banks and police were doing their utmost to protect society in general instead of possibly being blown up or shot somewhere going about doing their daily business.

bouicca21

When I had a similar problem with Halifax a couple of years ago they told me that the fraud checks were triggered automatically and there was no way to flag an upcoming transaction as OK. So I could tell them I was going to transfer £x on a particular day and that it was a perfectly legitimate transaction but it still risked being held up if flagged as 'unusual'.

diamonds

bouicca21 wrote: »

When I had a similar problem with Halifax a couple of years ago they told me that the fraud checks were triggered automatically and there was no way to flag an upcoming transaction as OK. So I could tell them I was going to transfer £x on a particular day and that it was a perfectly legitimate transaction but it still risked being held up if flagged as 'unusual'.

Seems Halifax have proper training then...notify customer.


Quite good to know given my main account is now Halifax, my chances of disputing something a staff member knows nothing about what they are in dispute about is minimised. Proactivity - the way forward.


Thanks for that info

Ballard

diamonds wrote: »

In any instance of suspected fraud, terrorist etc etc a back office 999 call for police attendance in my opinion would be paramount - catching a criminal in situ who may not be the account holder or terrorist funding with deliberate old contact details. But most organisations dumb down their staff over pro-activity in contradiction with the police asking the public to be vigilant.


Most customers having police in attendance and explaining why they were there in this day and age of risk would be happy to know the banks and police were doing their utmost to protect society in general instead of possibly being blown up or shot somewhere going about doing their daily business.

You've outshone yourself with this one. The 999 service is for emergencies only. You can't call the old bill because for things like this. Are you 12?

The idea is that the MLRO report their suspicions to the relevant police department. It may be that other organisations have reported this account holder similarly and that the police are already working on a case. Plod turning up with handcuffs could alert their accomplices to allow them to scarper, for instance.

Ballard

I've just recalled a case at one place where I worked. One of our customers asked for a transfer which (without going into details for confidentiality reasons) was completely out of character. The account holder was called into the branch to discuss it.

The GM went through the transaction and provided evidence that it was highly likely to be a fraud but the customer was having none of it. As far as he was concerned this was a legitimate transaction and the bank had to adhere to his instructions. In the end the customer signed a letter to say that he had been strongly advised not to go through with the transaction and that he had been shown evidence why.

Unsurprisingly that was the last that he saw of that money.

diamonds

Ballard wrote: »

You've outshone yourself with this one. The 999 service is for emergencies only. You can't call the old bill because for things like this. Are you 12?

The idea is that the MLRO report their suspicions to the relevant police department. It may be that other organisations have reported this account holder similarly and that the police are already working on a case. Plod turning up with handcuffs could alert their accomplices to allow them to scarper, for instance.

Police dont have to turn up, they can search their or national files on the details provided from bank and tell bank to do MLRO or attend en situ, a customer need not even know, its not like a CRA, bank or police constabulary will not send them a alert police and bank are checking them, the CRA notification in itself could cause a suspect to run and notify accomplices.



IMO:
Where a member of the public sees suspicion, police over a employers fragmented from legislation policy. Every time. Safety First = proactive.

diamonds

Ballard wrote: »

I've just recalled a case at one place where I worked. One of our customers asked for a transfer which (without going into details for confidentiality reasons) was completely out of character. The account holder was called into the branch to discuss it.

The GM went through the transaction and provided evidence that it was highly likely to be a fraud but the customer was having none of it. As far as he was concerned this was a legitimate transaction and the bank had to adhere to his instructions. In the end the customer signed a letter to say that he had been strongly advised not to go through with the transaction and that he had been shown evidence why.

Unsurprisingly that was the last that he saw of that money.

Completely proactive bank. What bank was this ?

Ballard

diamonds wrote: »

Police dont have to turn up, they can search their or national files on the details provided from bank and tell bank to do MLRO or attend en situ, a customer need not even know, its not like a CRA, bank or police constabulary will not send them a alert police and bank are checking them, the CRA notification in itself could cause a suspect to run and notify accomplices.



IMO:
Where a member of the public sees suspicion, police over a employers fragmented from legislation policy. Every time. Safety First = proactive.

There are already procedures in place to alert the police to financial crime. 999 is not the way to contact them as it is the emergency number.

I can't be bothered to quote properly but:

Quote:

a back office 999 call for police attendance in my opinion would be paramount

unquote

diamonds

Ballard wrote: »

There are already procedures in place to alert the police to financial crime. 999 is not the way to contact them as it is the emergency number.

I can't be bothered to quote properly but:

Quote:

a back office 999 call for police attendance in my opinion would be paramount

unquote

A terrorist or fraudster may be in branch, do you

1a) Alert police this may be the case, give customer details for background checking to then receive advice from trained law enforcement officials how to proceed, ie police.



1b) Alert such criminal through possible CRA checks being notified you are on to them.



2) Waste billions collectively tracking such criminals worldwide after being in situ and missing a chance to question/arrest them.



A level of proactive common sense is needed, you cant train all staff fully in that, where staff are unsure (work policy or sheer suspicion) contact police for guidance, police are not going to charge you for wasting time for being vigilant or proactive.

Ballard

Unless there is serious danger to life you alert the police through the correct channels. You do not dial 999. It's quite simple.