Fraudulent Misrepresentation

Autumnella

Sell the card via week, you might even get more then you paid for it.

Zerofear62

Yeah, I don't think you're being unreasonable at all, asking them to illegally refund your order to a different payment that was used. While your there why don't you ask them to put 1Mil in your account to and get the CEO to give you a foot rub. Curry's aren't liable for you purchasing a gift card through employee schemes to get the item cheaper. Either wait for the item and stop acting like you've been so hard done by and that Curry's have taken everything from you. Or get a refund of the gift card and see if your employee scheme can refund it, sell it on or buy something else with it. But you should certainly stop moaning, you sound like a spoiled child that doesn't want to wait for the Christmas present. Get over yourself.

Hermione_Granger

Zerofear62 wrote: »

Yeah, I don't think you're being unreasonable at all, asking them to illegally refund your order to a different payment that was used.

Getting a refund via a different payment method is not illegal in any way.
Provided that the retailer is able to provide traceability for the money then what they are doing is completely acceptable as far as money laundering legislation is concerned.
Any refund onto a card is traceable back to the card issuer and they should have carried out checks before issuing a card.

Zerofear62

As a customer service executive at a well known bank, I think I know what I'm talking about when moving of funds are involved.

Hermione_Granger

Zerofear62 wrote: »

As a customer service executive at a well known bank, I think I know what I'm talking about when moving of funds are involved.

So will you quote the relevant section of the legislation that makes it illegal to give a refund via a different method?

Zerofear62

328 Arrangements

(1)A person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement which he knows or suspects facilitates (by whatever means) the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person.

(2)But a person does not commit such an offence if—

(a)he makes an authorised disclosure under section 338 and (if the disclosure is made before he does the act mentioned in subsection (1)) he has the appropriate consent;

(b)he intended to make such a disclosure but had a reasonable excuse for not doing so;

(c)the act he does is done in carrying out a function he has relating to the enforcement of any provision of this Act or of any other enactment relating to criminal conduct or benefit from criminal conduct.

[F1(3)Nor does a person commit an offence under subsection (1) if—

(a)he knows, or believes on reasonable grounds, that the relevant criminal conduct occurred in a particular country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and

(b)the relevant criminal conduct—

(i)was not, at the time it occurred, unlawful under the criminal law then applying in that country or territory, and

(ii)is not of a description prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State.

(4) In subsection (3) “ the relevant criminal conduct ” is the criminal conduct by reference to which the property concerned is criminal property. ]

[F2(5)A deposit-taking body that does an act mentioned in subsection (1) does not commit an offence under that subsection if—

(a)it does the act in operating an account maintained with it, and

(b)the arrangement facilitates the acquisition, retention, use or control of criminal property of a value that is less than the threshold amount determined under section 339A for the act.]

So while in very rare cases a refund to a different payment method can be legal, it has to follow every subsection under this legislation, which this does not follow, there is not a legitimate reason this refund needs to be done by a different payment so this would be investigated under anti-laundering laws and would be classed as fraud due to no legitimate reason for the refund change of account/method.

Hermione_Granger

The first line is the most relevant one:
"which he knows or suspects facilitates"
Surely as a bank customer service executive you must know that when a debit or credit card is issued in the UK, the issuer would legally be required to undertake due diligence checks on the identity of the applicant of that card.
Provided the payment was refunded onto a UK issued card, there is nothing whatsoever illegal in processing the refund this way.

IMO, the money laundering and proceeds of crime legislation are treated by many companies in exactly the same way as the DPA in that they use these as a get even when they don't apply simply to avoid having to do something that is outside of their normal processes.

Zerofear62

I never said the refund would fail every subsection I said it did not pass all of them which it would require to be deemed as legal. Just choosing to pick and choose information are we? This would be looked at as fraud due to no legitimate reason for changing the method of refund. That alone would make this illegal never mind the other sub sections. As for DPA which apply to every business the same when handling customer information, three forms of DPA checks have to be provided before even being able to discuss a single thing to do with a customers order/account/any information. Most commonly but not limited to these are, FULL name of the customer, FULL postcode and address of the customer and one contact number for the customer.

MothballsWallet

Highlighting is mine.

Hermione_Granger wrote: »

The first line is the most relevant one:
"which he knows or suspects facilitates"
Surely as a bank customer service executive you must know that when a debit or credit card is issued in the UK, the issuer would legally be required to undertake due diligence checks on the identity of the applicant of that card.
Provided the payment was refunded onto a UK issued card, there is nothing whatsoever illegal in processing the refund this way.

IMO, the money laundering and proceeds of crime legislation are treated by many companies in exactly the same way as the DPA in that they use these as a get even when they don't apply simply to avoid having to do something that is outside of their normal processes.

So, the other poster works for an American bank where everyone's an "executive", including the cleaners :cool:

Zerofear62

So, I don't know if this is sarcasm towards the other poster, or that you're try to actually entail I work for an "american bank" as a "cleaner". If the latter then I do not appreciate the assumption you have made. I do not work for an "american bank" and I am certainly not a cleaner. Yes I will admit executive is a fancy word for as step up to the general customer service advisor, but none the less I have been working a crucial role in arguable the biggest British bank for just shy of 3 years now, I know what I'm talking about. If this was sarcasm towards the other poster then I do apologize, but I am proud of my position/role and the company I work for.