Looks like I've been the victim of an elaborate fraud on Gumtree

Cornucopia

Hmm... I'm guessing that the Banks and Which? may have thought about that.

As I said before, it's not just about control over the money, but also about whether the Seller's bank account has been fraudulently opened, and is not properly linked with verified ID.

I don't think it's rocket-science to make this type of fraud much, much harder for the scammers.

Cornucopia

bxboards wrote: »

I do not see how the banks have any responsibility here?

They are facilitating the fraud.

There have been no errors or mistakes on their part...

They have facilitated the fraud by allowing an account to be opened and operated fraudulently.

...and the buyer authorized the payment. Banks ultimatately do need to act on a customer's wishes.

Both my online banks have large warnings on the pages concerned with setting up payments, so they obviously recognise the problem, and the need to at least warn people.

Unless a bank is given a duty to second guess every payment I can't see what they can do.

The Banks are no doubt concerned that anything they do will either be costly in terms of change or costly in operation. However, they still need to be mindful that they are facilitating the fraud, and that they therefore need to take all reasonable steps to detect it and prevent it.

Surely we would not expect the sending bank to reimburse the customer?

It may be that, as a way of making the bank share the responsibility for secure, non-fraudulent payments. You can be sure that if they were potentially liable for making a refund, then they would take more care about where the funds were heading and who to.

This level of protection (and more) is what we get with Credit & Debit Card transactions, so I don't see why there should be an objection in principle, here.

If I lost a wallet in the street, I would not go running to the bank asking for them to give it back...

You would with a Bank Card, though.

... I do not see a whole lot of difference with people authorizing transactions in this case. The sender wanted to send the money to the recipient and the bank did as they were told.

It's quite clear that the customers concerned did not know that a bank transfer was untraceable and irreversible, and in fact the warnings on my online banking still do not make this as abundantly clear as they could do.

The difference with cash lies within that lack of publicity and lack of customer understanding. After, it's not unreasonable to assume that the Sort Code and Account number of the Seller relates to a bona fide account, opened with sufficient valid ID so as to be reasonably sure that the person exists. (There is a secondary issue with accounts being opened in the name of a third party without their consent, by fraud).

This looks to me at going for the wrong target.

It can only really be the Banks that are targeted, because by the time the fraud is identified, the scammer is likely to have already disappeared with the cash.

The simple point is that it is not the scammer in isolation that is the problem, but the combination of scammer + poor security processes within the Banks. Remove the latter, and the former will have to look elsewhere to undertake their crimes.

I don't know what the most effective solution would be, because this will partly depend on the size and scale of the issue, which is not publicly known, AFAIK.

However, a simple approach could be to simply say that a normal bank account belonging to a private individual is not permitted to receive large (£250+) direct transfer credits from accounts not linked to them. Or perhaps, they are allowed, but they are subject to a lengthy (1 week per £100) cooling off period?

I do wonder what role the phasing out of cheques has in all of this, too?

bxboards

Cornucopia wrote: »

Hmm... I'm guessing that the Banks and Which? may have thought about that.

As I said before, it's not just about control over the money, but also about whether the Seller's bank account has been fraudulently opened, and is not properly linked with verified ID.

I don't think it's rocket-science to make this type of fraud much, much harder for the scammers.

Well I agree regarding the recipient bank, but what happens if someone has been banking for years, and then goes rogue later?

I think the banks are the wrong target.

I thinkwhat worries me is that fraud will essentially be de-criminalized because the banks will be expected to pick up the tab, so hey ho, no harm done, we can be irresponsible with our money and security because someone else will pick up the tab.

I'd love to see people stop being ripped off, but I think this is best served by going after scammers and locking them up and getting them to repay the money and re-possess assets if needed. Why should a bank fund a fraudster and be liable for their actions?

Fraud is a crime, and needs to be treated as such and prosecuted, not saying..all well its OK the banks will pick up the tab. This sort of thinking has got us into silly stations with contactless cards where low level fraud is essentially written off, and the banks write if off. That is enabling fraud too but no one bats an eyelid.

Cornucopia

I don't disagree with you regarding the proper policing of fraud.

Realistically, though, once the receiving bank account has gone rogue, that means that there is no longer an identifiable individual associated with it. And the lack of an identifiable individual tends to make policing quite difficult. I simply don't see how you can catch the fraudsters easily under these circumstances, but I am eager to hear any suggestions.

The Banks' motivation is money, and if writing off fraud is cheaper than fixing it, then they will do that. However, it is within the Government's gift to encourage them not to, perhaps by taxing them (more) on such write-offs?

DD265

I have to confess, I'd have been suspicious at driving license, passport and bank statement. There's no way in hell I'd share those details with a stranger on the internet.

Sorry OP I think you might be out of luck.

Stevie_Palimo

lush_walrus wrote: »

How do you know they do nothing? I had reason to report something to them and that was dealt with.

I have used them a long time ago and they did nothing bar take notes, I now advise certain customers to try them to and each time I haver further contact they say the same thing nothing happens, In short as per my post they do nothing.