money mules

BlackBird75

Uxb wrote: »

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.

I'm not expecting the courts to actually deter money mules.
But that leniency should be accounted for when assessing the risk of using the banking system.

i.e. no deterrent to mules, means the system is more risky. In other business spheres, this would lead to a market pressure from customers for the provider to mitigate that risk.

cloud_dog

BlackBird75 wrote: »

I have been given a contactless debit card...

Ok, so cut the corner off the card...no more contactless. Problem one solved.

BlackBird75 wrote: »

...and a £5000 credit card limit.

Ummm, cut the card in half. Problem two solved.

BlackBird75 wrote: »

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.

Both problems solved, no more of that 'foisting' by those banks. Next.

eskbanker

Uxb wrote: »

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.

Ironic to have a pop at women when ranting in the style of Katie Hopkins....

BlackBird75

In this case the mule probably didn't realise she was committing a crime. It seems to have been part of a "work agency" type scam. She was told the money would be paid to her upfront for travel costs etc and "claimed back" by the "agency", if she wasn't required for work that day etc.

Unfortunately, a sign of the casual, flexible, agency led workforce these days.

So I don't think harsher punishment of mules is the answer. But I think the banking system should be more individualized, in order to mitigate the threats.

Interestingly, both the agency workforce and the dominant banking system can be traced back to the government....

AnotherJoe

BlackBird75 wrote: »

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.
.

How about implementing a system where the names must match instead of forcing people back to cheques (which have their own fraud problems) ?

I dont think many (say) 80 year olds are opening new accounts so you need to deal with the situation as it is, millions of people all ages and capacities with "normal" bank accounts. What do you plan should happen to my account when I'm 80? or 85 or whatever arbitrary age you've set? Will this help people caught out who are in their 50's? Or 40's?

BlackBird75 wrote: »

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

You suggestion doesn't seem outrageous, it seems stupid, because its a blanket ban based on an arbitrary age and its implementation would require a massive complex and costly bureaucracy, it would be a "cure" which was worse than the disease.

p00hsticks

BlackBird75 wrote: »

Yes. Different levels of bank account.
Why does someone on benefits need to be able to receive transfers in from other accounts, that are not pre authorised?

All they really need is to receive their benefit money and pay out utilities etc.

FYI, there is a Post Office Card Account (POCA) that does more or less what you describe, although I think they would need to go to a post office to draw out cash and then pay any utility bills over the counter



https://www.postoffice.co.uk/post-office-card-account

BlackBird75

eskbanker wrote: »

Ironic of Katie Hopkins....

I'd just Googled to find out who "Katie Hopkins" is:

It seems she had her house sold to pay the courts, so if she can't protect her own house, I wouldn't be taking her advice on the banking system.

BlackBird75

p00hsticks wrote: »

FYI, there is a Post Office Card Account (POCA) that does more or less what you describe, although I think they would need to go to a post office to draw out cash and then pay any utility bills over the counter

https://www.postoffice.co.uk/post-office-card-account

Thank you.
That is interesting.
Is the Post Office now part of the Fractional Reserve Banking system?