NatWest First Party Fraud Restrictions

Migster

It is of course possible that your customer's bank, although now advised that the payments weren't fraudulent, has not passed on this info to your bank. I expect there is a set process in place for reporting a bank transfer fraud, but possibly, not one to cancel it.

Also, the mentions of AML on here I don't think are relevant. There are strict regulations in relation to AML, but fraud investigation is typically separate from this and as such "tipping off" rules are unlikely to apply.

born_again

Interbank communication is never quick. Especially in situations like this, As each bank has to conduct it's own investigation, then talk to each other. Which often is not in person. Then goes back to the start again.

One thing is that the person that started this, could well end up having their account's withdrawn by their bank for "Breach of Trust" & a CIFAS marker placed against them for this attempted fraud.

Bdem96

Migster said:

It is of course possible that your customer's bank, although now advised that the payments weren't fraudulent, has not passed on this info to your bank. I expect there is a set process in place for reporting a bank transfer fraud, but possibly, not one to cancel it.

Also, the mentions of AML on here I don't think are relevant. There are strict regulations in relation to AML, but fraud investigation is typically separate from this and as such "tipping off" rules are unlikely to apply.

You know what’s funny, an advisor I spoke to said to me over the phone they have confirmation from HSBC that the dispute was withdrawn back, but what’s this hold up for I couldn’t know.

Bdem96

born_again said:

Interbank communication is never quick. Especially in situations like this, As each bank has to conduct it's own investigation, then talk to each other. Which often is not in person. Then goes back to the start again.

One thing is that the person that started this, could well end up having their account's withdrawn by their bank for "Breach of Trust" & a CIFAS marker placed against them for this attempted fraud.

I understand that, but isn’t that for like Visa fraud or whatever, why are they going back and forth about bank transfer? 

Daliah

Bdem96 said:

Migster said:

It is of course possible that your customer's bank, although now advised that the payments weren't fraudulent, has not passed on this info to your bank. I expect there is a set process in place for reporting a bank transfer fraud, but possibly, not one to cancel it.

Also, the mentions of AML on here I don't think are relevant. There are strict regulations in relation to AML, but fraud investigation is typically separate from this and as such "tipping off" rules are unlikely to apply.

You know what’s funny, an advisor I spoke to said to me over the phone they have confirmation from HSBC that the dispute was withdrawn back, but what’s this hold up for I couldn’t know.

I am speculating: it's perfectly possible that the person who got you into this trouble is / has been involved in other shady dealings, and that the NCA are presently in charge of the investigation. The fact that the complaint against you has been withdrawn will then make no difference. Natwest will have to wait until they get the all clear from the NCA before they can take further action.

Nobody on this forum can know the full circumstances, so all you can do is wait. 

nyermen

The sad thing here is not so much the "guilty until proven innocent part" (sadly, that seems to be the norm in banking these days), it's that if I make a payment to someones account, and then decide I want to declare it fraudulent, that the impact is on the receiving account rather than a question mark against the sender / someone having access to the senders details or account.

I'd like to think the originating bank are investigating properly but I suspect the original person just said to their bank "oops I made a mistake, it wasn't fraudulent after all", and the bank probably just closed the case.