money mules

BlackBird75

AnotherJoe wrote: »

Are you for real?

Yes.
Do you not agree the system should be more individual?

Cash-Strapped.T32

BlackBird75 wrote: »

Yes.
Do you not agree the system should be more individual?

I think AnotherJoe's point is that it should not be the case that well meaning people decide that the poor and the old should be prevented from using everyday services in order to protect those few who can't look after thier own money.

Seriously, just consider the implications of your own train of thought.
That some comittee should decide what banking functions I or you should be allowed depending on what they think I need or want? The very thought is abhorrent.

(so if someone on benefits only needs to pay utilities then why not you too - is your life signifiantly more complex?)

And for what good? To simply close off one of many avenues for the scammed to become so?
Why not ban cash for the physically weak because it encourages mugging? It might sound silly at first, but it's merely an extension of the same logic and is not a fundamentally different prospect.

Personally I'd rather we stick to allowing the maximum freedom and make it possible for people to protect themselves, rather than make it impossible to do anything even marginally out of the norm over the slight risk that someone might mis-use the power.

BlackBird75

Cash-Strapped.T32 wrote: »

I think AnotherJoe's point is that it should not be the case that well meaning people decide that the poor and the old should be prevented from using everyday services in order to protect those few who can't look after thier own money.

Seriously, just consider the implications of your own train of thought.
That some comittee should decide what banking functions I or you should be allowed depending on what they think I need or want? The very thought is abhorrent.

(so if someone on benefits only needs to pay utilities then why not you too - is your life signifiantly more complex?)

And for what good? To simply close off one of many avenues for the scammed to become so?
Why not ban cash for the physically weak because it encourages mugging? It might sound silly at first, but it's merely an extension of the same logic and is not a fundamentally different prospect.

Personally I'd rather we stick to allowing the maximum freedom and make it possible for people to protect themselves, rather than make it impossible to do anything even marginally out of the norm over the slight risk that someone might mis-use the power.

I'm not saying the poor or the elderly should be outright banned from certain transfers etc. Just that these should not be offered as a default for everyone. If the girl on benefits wants to receive money from unknown citizens, fine. But why is that a default setting? It opens her up to getting involved in fraud.

The example of the vulnerable being robbed of cash is true. Old people do get mugged less these days. Muggers have switched their attention to iPhones etc. I wouldn't ban the elderly from being paid their pension in cash, but I wouldn't make it the default option.

I have been given a contactless debit card and a £5000 credit card limit. I didn't want or ask for either. The banking system just seems to force change on people without request and does not then accept responsibility when fraud occurs.

Same with the government. They are close to the banks and force the public into using banks, but effectively delegate punishment of fraudsters to the CIFAS banking system.

Glen_Clark

BlackBird75 wrote: »

Nothing actually happened to this girl who was a mule. She just got a warning.

She may have got a little more than that, Whatever.
We have to obey the law because if we so much as park on a yellow line they can fine us. If we don't pay they can send the baliffs in. If we oppose them they can ruin us with legal costs.
But people on benefits generally have nothing that can be taken away from them, and much more incentive to commit fraud because they need the money.
So what can you do with them? Send them to prison? Thats expensive, and they invariably come out worse than they went in.

Cash-Strapped.T32

BlackBird75 wrote: »

I have been given a contactless debit card and a £5000 credit card limit. I didn't want or ask for either. The banking system just seems to force change on people without request and does not then accept responsibility when fraud occurs.

I agree with you to an extent, and for sure I don't think the current system and & practices are perfect - far from it! :cool:
I Just think we need to be careful in general of saying what people can & can't be trusted with - these things can have a lot of knock on consequences that aren't necessarily intended.

AnotherJoe

BlackBird75 wrote: »

Yes.
Do you not agree the system should be more individual?

At what age are you proposing people should have their banking system pretty much shut down and the facilities they may depend on taken away ?
How would those who need the facilities deal with the disruption when it was arbitrarily removed from them?
Why do it by age ? Some people aged 40 aren't capable of managing their own affairs, some aged 80 are still running businesses.
Should it be done by a committee ? Do I have to pass an interview with this committee ?
What happens if i disagree ? What happens when there's a mistake and the committee remove someone's banking capabilities. How would this happen?
What is the mechanism for informing banks and financial institutions that you are being moved onto one of they restricted accounts ? How is that implemented? What happens when one of these institutions get its wrong and arbitrarily moves you to restricted when you shouldnt be ?

These are justa few of the issues I've thought of in two minutes. I'm sure there are dozens more.
There's a quote that fits your idea perfectly. " for every complex problem there is a solution that is straightforward, simple and wrong"

Malthusian

In this country what is not forbidden is permitted.

If you want to live in a country where what is not permitted is forbidden, there are plenty to choose from.

However I would warn you that fraud is rife in those countries as well. Often more so.

Uxb

BlackBird75 wrote: »

On looking into it further, it seems the government and the banks aren't really doing a lot to tackle this problem. It seems anyone can just open a bank account and have money transferred in by fraudsters. There seems to be no element of common sense applied by the banks.

Apparently some of the accounts used to money mule are those opened by quite legit foreign students in the country as part of their studies.
At the end of their tenure here they "sell" their accounts plus all the access codes to the scammers who then have a perfect legally opened account to use for their illegal purposes.
The foreign student of course is long gone, never to return and did not give a monkeys about this country, its citizens or those now scammed out of money by their actions.

Uxb

Glen_Clark wrote: »

But people on benefits generally have nothing that can be taken away from them, and much more incentive to commit fraud because they need the money.
So what can you do with them? Send them to prison? Thats expensive, and they invariably come out worse than they went in.

And the above in a nutshell is how the justice system works - only on those with something to loose, or on those who do not cost the "system" too much
The two groups the police/courts avoid are
1 The gyppo/traveller type who do not give give a monkeys and have no assets to pay any fines and won't anyway even if they did.
2. the super rich who will get their legal team to waste the police and CPS's time by the bucket load until they eventually give up.

Finally there is the group called women who also get off reasonably lightly as if they are jailed then invariably that means the state has to step in to provide for the children in their care - more expense for the state.

BlackBird75

AnotherJoe wrote: »

At what age are you proposing people should have their banking system pretty much shut down and the facilities they may depend on taken away ?
How would those who need the facilities deal with the disruption when it was arbitrarily removed from them?
Why do it by age ? Some people aged 40 aren't capable of managing their own affairs, some aged 80 are still running businesses.
Should it be done by a committee ? Do I have to pass an interview with this committee ?
What happens if i disagree ? What happens when there's a mistake and the committee remove someone's banking capabilities. How would this happen?
What is the mechanism for informing banks and financial institutions that you are being moved onto one of they restricted accounts ? How is that implemented? What happens when one of these institutions get its wrong and arbitrarily moves you to restricted when you shouldnt be ?

g"

The requirements of the account could be agreed upon opening the account.
Then adjusted later, if requested.

Sticking to paper cheques reduces the risk for example, because the name must match.
Utility bills etc can be arranged by direct debit.

My suggestion only seems outrageous, because we have become so familiar with the banking system that it is.