Bank fraud - Receiving Bank

Zain1982

Ectophile said:

Assume that the police will not take any action, unless Action Fraud passes on the case to them.  That won't happen unless Action Fraud sees a pattern of repeated frauds that add up to a much larger sum of money.

Small-scale fraud has effectively been decriminalised in this country.  You can't report it to the police, and the banks won't report it to the police either.  So your only chance is if you can take civil action against somebody.

The employer can only take a civil action against the receiving bank as they dont have the actual account holders details to go after that individual. How likely is it that will have any chance of succeeding?

born_again

Zain1982 said:

An email came from the employee's email account that was hacked to the employer. The employee reported this after the fact and on the day the payment was made.

Sure there was another thread with the same situation.
That employer has put new procedures in place and will not change bank account details on the back of  email. Which really is common sense.
Any changes should be confirmed either in person or over the phone is in person is not possible.

garth549

I've never understood why banks have no basic validation of the account owner's name when making a transfer.  Even if it was optional for the sender.

This would make this kind of fraud much, much harder. 

davidmcn

garth549 said:

I've never understood why banks have no basic validation of the account owner's name when making a transfer.

It's about to be introduced.

unholyangel

garth549 said:

I've never understood why banks have no basic validation of the account owner's name when making a transfer.  Even if it was optional for the sender.

This would make this kind of fraud much, much harder. 

Because the law didn't strictly say they needed to and banks aren't really about keeping your money safe, that's just a advertising gimmick to achieve their real aim - to make lots of money. They only care about their own losses - even where the law said they were liable, they'd still argue against it. 

Same with PINs etc - introduced as a "security" feature to keep your money safe but really its used by the banks as "proof" (at least according to them, not upheld by FoS or the courts) that either you authorised a payment or must have been grossly negligent with the pin. Where before, they would use handwriting analysis (at cost) to try defend claims. 

Zain1982

The receiving bank has comeback and said they'll provide the details to the police if they request it and have declined the complaint. Action Fraud are not doing anything to speed things up and you cannot report this directly to the police as they ask you to go via Action Fraud. Where does the employer go from here? Is there any point in taking this to FOS? or should the employer just going directly via the courts ? Civil or small claims court?

Manxman_in_exile

Zain1982 said:

... my view the receiving bank as they hold all the information and they have technically facilitated the fraud, I accept without any knowledge. 

Well there's your problem.  You keep talking about "facilitating the fraud"* which could mean anything, but I'm not sure the receiving bank can be held liable for that - either under civil law or criminal law.  You even admit yourself: "...I accept without any knowledge..." so why would a court find in your favour if the bank is not at fault and did not know?

From your OP you've already said that "...the employees bank details were changed by a phishing scam."  That implies to me that the employee may have been at fault for falling for the sort of fraud that my bank regularly and periodically warns me about.

I actually agree that banks ought to be held more accountable in terms of helping the victims of bank fraud, but that's not how the law currently is and I suspect the banks can afford to employ very clever and very expensive commercial lawyers who ensure that their responsibilities are restricted as far as the law currently allows.  If you think you can defeat them in a legal argument go ahead... but it may be costly.  Simpler and cheaper to heed warnings about phishing scams...  But good luck

*All that phrase means is making the fraud easier.  Presumably the employee did that too.

EDIT:  Apologies to OP.  I've quoted an earlier post than I thought I was responding too.  My pathetic excuse is this stupid new forum confuses me as to whether I'm on the current page or a previous one.

born_again

Given this is a APP scam.
It is covered for refunds by some banks.
>>

Eight banks, covering 17 brands, have committed to implement the code immediately:

• Barclays
• HSBC (including First Direct and M&S Bank)
• Lloyds (including Halifax, Bank of Scotland, and Intelligent Finance)
• Metro Bank
• Nationwide
• RBS (including NatWest and Ulster Bank)
• Santander (including Cahoot and Cater Allen)
• Starling Bank

The largest banks have established a fund to immediately reimburse customers who are in the "no blame" category.

eddddy

born_again said:

Given this is a APP scam.
It is covered for refunds by some banks.
>>

Eight banks, covering 17 brands, have committed to implement the code immediately:

• Barclays
• HSBC (including First Direct and M&S Bank)
• Lloyds (including Halifax, Bank of Scotland, and Intelligent Finance)
• Metro Bank
• Nationwide
• RBS (including NatWest and Ulster Bank)
• Santander (including Cahoot and Cater Allen)
• Starling Bank

The largest banks have established a fund to immediately reimburse customers who are in the "no blame" category.

The voluntary code only applies to Consumers and Micro-Enterprise (enterprises which employ fewer than 10 people and whose annual turnover and/or annual balance sheet total does not exceed 2 million euros.)

In this case the victim was a business - but it's not clear if it is a "Micro-Enterprise" - so the voluntary code might not apply.

(Also, if this is a long-running saga, the code only came into force in May 2019. If the payment was made before then, it won't be covered by the voluntary code.)