bank closed sons account and accused him of fraud

Tallaght

There seems to be a story like this everyday on these forums.

EachPenny

BooJewels wrote: »

What a ridiculous comment from them. It can't have been much of an in-depth investigation if they didn't even speak to the Police. I assume you passed on the crime number?

To be fair to the bank, the OP has given us an important further insight into the sequence of events:-

optomystic wrote: »

they actually said that before he made them aware of what happened to him!

It now sounds like the sequence is:-
OP's son: "Can I have my money back please?"
Bank: "No, students do this all the time"
OP's son: "But I was drugged, kidnapped and robbed!"
Bank: "Errr...."

OP, can you confirm if that really is the case? Is there a reason why you son didn't start the conversation with the bank with "Hello, I've been subject to a serious crime, I've been drugged and kidnapped and the kidnappers have stolen money from my account...."?

Did all of this happen in one conversation, or was there a delay (of hours/days) in him telling them about the kidnapping?

(Not meaning to be judgemental or critical of your son, just trying to understand why what is possibly the most important bit of information wasn't provided at the very beginning)

Thrugelmir

masonic wrote: »

It seems likely this is the view the bank has taken. And the bank will have access to the transactions history of the account.

May possibly explain the other related matters. Not passing on the money on isn't unknown. Resulting in action being taken.

BooJewels

EachPenny wrote: »

To be fair to the bank, the OP has given us an important further insight into the sequence of events:-

Apologies, my comment wasn't intended as any sort of slur on the OP or son, more about the generalised comment from the bank about students - if they find that student accounts are so prone to abuse, then maybe they need to look at better ways of managing them, maybe with additional security that can't be quite so easily circumvented. If it's a known issue, then, maybe the bank need to take a bit more responsibility for how those accounts are set up and used.

jonnygee2

Okay, just to check, have you had an honest conversation with your son to triple check this wasn't actually a plan of his gone wrong. Because if they found any link at all between the owner of the receiving account and your son, then taking this any further is a very bad idea.

From here I'll assume he is actually innocent and the story genuine.

This is where im struggling, what do we do next?
do we tell all this to the financial ombudsman?

You should report this to the ombudsman. But, I would definitely work on the police report first, this will be crucial evidence for FOS.

To be fair to the bank, the OP has given us an important further insight into the sequence of events:-

To be fair to the OP, it was the banks responsibility to establish the facts of the case before they made a decision. They need to be able to prove the son made the transactions, as part of that they need to understand and question him about what happened. If they questioned him and he lied, that's one thing, but if they simply didn't ask the questions and just did a review of the back office part, that's the banks fault.

Not only has the bank seemingly failed to investigate this fraud properly, they have also (in their laziness and apparent contempt for their customer) failed to act appropriately to inform the receiving bank of the criminally acquired funds, which is where the real investigation should be taking place, and hindered any subsequent investigation into this account.

This should definitely be reported to the ombudsman, this is a significant failing of this banks anti-fraud procedure.

Thrugelmir

BooJewels wrote: »

If it's a known issue, then, maybe the bank need to take a bit more responsibility for how those accounts are set up and used.

Not the accounts themselves which are the issue. More the manner in which they are used. Banks in such instances can only ever be reactive. Rather like speeding in a car. People knowingly take the risk of the penalty if they get caught.

EachPenny

jonnygee2 wrote: »

To be fair to the OP, it was the banks responsibility to establish the facts of the case before they made a decision. They need to be able to prove the son made the transactions, as part of that they need to understand and question him about what happened. If they questioned him and he lied, that's one thing, but if they simply didn't ask the questions and just did a review of the back office part, that's the banks fault.

Not only has the bank seemingly failed to investigate this fraud properly, they have also (in their laziness and apparent contempt for their customer) failed to act appropriately to inform the receiving bank of the criminally acquired funds, which is where the real investigation should be taking place, and hindered any subsequent investigation into this account.

This should definitely be reported to the ombudsman, this is a significant failing of this banks anti-fraud procedure.

What none of us know is the detail of what the OP's son first reported to the bank. The story they gave could have been a complete and plausible account of how the money was taken. Why would the bank interrogate a customer in those circumstances?

The other thing that none of us know is what conversations have taken place between the bank and the police. We've also got no idea what communication has taken place with the receiving bank.

So deciding this is a "significant failing of this banks anti-fraud procedure" is a bit of an assumption for the time being.

masonic

jonnygee2 wrote: »

To be fair to the OP, it was the banks responsibility to establish the facts of the case before they made a decision. They need to be able to prove the son made the transactions, as part of that they need to understand and question him about what happened. If they questioned him and he lied, that's one thing, but if they simply didn't ask the questions and just did a review of the back office part, that's the banks fault.

Not only has the bank seemingly failed to investigate this fraud properly, they have also (in their laziness and apparent contempt for their customer) failed to act appropriately to inform the receiving bank of the criminally acquired funds, which is where the real investigation should be taking place, and hindered any subsequent investigation into this account.

This should definitely be reported to the ombudsman, this is a significant failing of this banks anti-fraud procedure.

Before going to the Financial Ombudsman Service, it is important to establish the facts. If the bank is in possession of evidence of a pattern of transactions on the account that indicates money laundering prior to the kidnapping, then it is likely the FOS will side with the bank unless this can be disproven. In the event that money was paid into the account that was the proceeds of crime, then even taking the matter to court would likely be unsuccessful - even if the money stolen also included legitimate funds.

This sort of thing is not as uncommon as you might think, here is an article from last month on the subject: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-45797603

...and one from this month about the consequences: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46196850

DCFC79

They got really lucky, picked the right target, easily transferred the money.

jonnygee2

Before going to the Financial Ombudsman Service, it is important to establish the facts. If the bank is in possession of evidence of a pattern of transactions on the account that indicates money laundering prior to the kidnapping, then it is likely the FOS will side with the bank unless this can be disproven

They aren't. If they suspected money laundering they would have to freeze the account and submit a SAR to the NCA, and in my experience it is extremely unlikely they would have managed to do this and get a reply from the NCA with consent to take action in two working days. Also, there's no reason to suspect money laundering in this case.

So I'm pretty confident the son is not being accused of money laundering. Instead they are being accused of attempting to commit fraud by falsely claiming a transaction as unauthorised. In these instances the bank can make their own judgements without having to wait for the NCA which is how they were able to come to a judgement in two days.

It's unlikely the bank will give any further information or response without FOS intervention. The OP has already reached the end of the banks internal complaints procedure (as shown by the fact they got referred to FOS). This is the correct time to escalate to the ombudsman.

If the ombudsman needs a police report to make a judgement, they will inform the OP after this is escalated.

What none of us know is the detail of what the OP's son first reported to the bank. The story they gave could have been a complete and plausible account of how the money was taken

Well yes if he actually lied or gave a different story then there's a much bigger problem for the OP. But as mentioned I was assuming that he didn't lie and was simply not asked. The bank has a duty to ask questions and establish the facts, so yes if they didn't do this there was a failing in there internal fraud procedures.

The other thing that none of us know is what conversations have taken place between the bank and the police.

It's very unlikely there have been any. As mentioned its unlikely that the NCA is involved and the local police would need a court order to obtain information about the bank account. Either way the OP will probably never know unless they end up in a courtroom. If they wait for this information they will wait forever.