Fraudster tried to empty building society account refund refused

GrubbyGirl_2

What I can never understand about these type of scams is how the banks allow it to happen in the first place.  You have to jump through many hoops to open an account so they know exactly who these people are and they should be prosecuted.  If the bank doesn't know who they are or have not done sufficient checks then they should be required to reimburse.  It seems to me that if the person has already moved the money then there is nothing that can be done.  Why don't banks work together to solve these scams and keep our money safe?

GeoffTF

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

What I can never understand about these type of scams is how the banks allow it to happen in the first place.  You have to jump through many hoops to open an account so they know exactly who these people are and they should be prosecuted.  If the bank doesn't know who they are or have not done sufficient checks then they should be required to reimburse.  It seems to me that if the person has already moved the money then there is nothing that can be done.  Why don't banks work together to solve these scams and keep our money safe?

A common method is for scammers is to get their victims to open accounts to which the scammers have access, or give them access to existing accounts. Prosecuting the victims would not make much sense.

Nasqueron

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

What I can never understand about these type of scams is how the banks allow it to happen in the first place.  You have to jump through many hoops to open an account so they know exactly who these people are and they should be prosecuted.  If the bank doesn't know who they are or have not done sufficient checks then they should be required to reimburse.  It seems to me that if the person has already moved the money then there is nothing that can be done.  Why don't banks work together to solve these scams and keep our money safe?

Sometimes customers are determined to be scammed despite all safeguards. It's not hard to quickly and legitimately setup an account with someone like Monzo or Starling so if the person does it and then moves money to another account owned by the scammers and it's moved on immediately it's not traceable as the account will be in fake names and the money moved out of the country.

If you look at this example  both banks (Virgin and Revolut) stopped the transactions and told them it was a scam but the victim ignore it, Virgin asked them if it was going into crypto but they lied about it (they thought an initial £100 had risen to £600 in days so got greedy and wanted to put another £5000 in, eventually raising to £23,000 with loans) - it got to the point Revolut even told them to send a photo with a sign saying they were not being scammed. The scammers put in loan applications and one rang them and asked because they were concerned and again the victims lied about the purpose.

There is only so much you can do when people are too greedy or just unwilling to follow the safety advice being rammed down our throats 

eskbanker

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

What I can never understand about these type of scams is how the banks allow it to happen in the first place.  You have to jump through many hoops to open an account so they know exactly who these people are and they should be prosecuted.  If the bank doesn't know who they are or have not done sufficient checks then they should be required to reimburse.  It seems to me that if the person has already moved the money then there is nothing that can be done.  Why don't banks work together to solve these scams and keep our money safe?

Banks are required to implement fraud prevention and fraud detection algorithms, but aren't under any obligation to pursue fraudsters on behalf of victims after the event, that's for the police and courts.

Having said that, there have of course been industry initiatives to reduce risk - the one discussed above (the voluntary CRM code to reimburse APP scams) was effectively underpinned by the introduction of Confirmation of Payee, which all but eliminated a range of scams via which fraudsters convinced their victims to send money to the wrong accounts.

GrubbyGirl_2

Nasqueron said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

What I can never understand about these type of scams is how the banks allow it to happen in the first place.  You have to jump through many hoops to open an account so they know exactly who these people are and they should be prosecuted.  If the bank doesn't know who they are or have not done sufficient checks then they should be required to reimburse.  It seems to me that if the person has already moved the money then there is nothing that can be done.  Why don't banks work together to solve these scams and keep our money safe?

Sometimes customers are determined to be scammed despite all safeguards. It's not hard to quickly and legitimately setup an account with someone like Monzo or Starling so if the person does it and then moves money to another account owned by the scammers and it's moved on immediately it's not traceable as the account will be in fake names and the money moved out of the country.

If you look at this example  both banks (Virgin and Revolut) stopped the transactions and told them it was a scam but the victim ignore it, Virgin asked them if it was going into crypto but they lied about it (they thought an initial £100 had risen to £600 in days so got greedy and wanted to put another £5000 in, eventually raising to £23,000 with loans) - it got to the point Revolut even told them to send a photo with a sign saying they were not being scammed. The scammers put in loan applications and one rang them and asked because they were concerned and again the victims lied about the purpose.

There is only so much you can do when people are too greedy or just unwilling to follow the safety advice being rammed down our throats 

That's my point.  Banks should require robust ID to be able to open an account so they can't use fake names especially in this day and age when this is rife.  I agree though that will all the publicity you would think people would not continue to fall for these scams.  My mother is 98 and is smart enough to know not to click on links in emails and doesn't take any calls from anyone not in her contacts list.  Even her answer machine message states that she will only call back people from numbers she knows or can look up.  If she can do it I just don't understand why others fall for it.  But you're right, if people are given warnings and they do it anyway then you can't help them

GrubbyGirl_2

eskbanker said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

What I can never understand about these type of scams is how the banks allow it to happen in the first place.  You have to jump through many hoops to open an account so they know exactly who these people are and they should be prosecuted.  If the bank doesn't know who they are or have not done sufficient checks then they should be required to reimburse.  It seems to me that if the person has already moved the money then there is nothing that can be done.  Why don't banks work together to solve these scams and keep our money safe?

Banks are required to implement fraud prevention and fraud detection algorithms, but aren't under any obligation to pursue fraudsters on behalf of victims after the event, that's for the police and courts.

Having said that, there have of course been industry initiatives to reduce risk - the one discussed above (the voluntary CRM code to reimburse APP scams) was effectively underpinned by the introduction of Confirmation of Payee, which all but eliminated a range of scams via which fraudsters convinced their victims to send money to the wrong accounts.

Totally agree with that but the banks should know who owns the account that the fraudsters are using by having robust ID requirements to open the account in the first place.  If they did this then the police would know who to prosecute

wmb194

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

eskbanker said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

What I can never understand about these type of scams is how the banks allow it to happen in the first place.  You have to jump through many hoops to open an account so they know exactly who these people are and they should be prosecuted.  If the bank doesn't know who they are or have not done sufficient checks then they should be required to reimburse.  It seems to me that if the person has already moved the money then there is nothing that can be done.  Why don't banks work together to solve these scams and keep our money safe?

Banks are required to implement fraud prevention and fraud detection algorithms, but aren't under any obligation to pursue fraudsters on behalf of victims after the event, that's for the police and courts.

Having said that, there have of course been industry initiatives to reduce risk - the one discussed above (the voluntary CRM code to reimburse APP scams) was effectively underpinned by the introduction of Confirmation of Payee, which all but eliminated a range of scams via which fraudsters convinced their victims to send money to the wrong accounts.

Totally agree with that but the banks should know who owns the account that the fraudsters are using by having robust ID requirements to open the account in the first place.  If they did this then the police would know who to prosecute

They do know but they are often people who have been fooled into being money mules and there are cases where people sell their accounts e.g.,  foreign students when they return home. So all genuinely opened but ultimately not the people the police is really looking for.

grumbler

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

Nasqueron said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

What I can never understand about these type of scams is how the banks allow it to happen in the first place.  You have to jump through many hoops to open an account so they know exactly who these people are and they should be prosecuted.  If the bank doesn't know who they are or have not done sufficient checks then they should be required to reimburse.  It seems to me that if the person has already moved the money then there is nothing that can be done.  Why don't banks work together to solve these scams and keep our money safe?

Sometimes customers are determined to be scammed despite all safeguards. It's not hard to quickly and legitimately setup an account with someone like Monzo or Starling so if the person does it and then moves money to another account owned by the scammers and it's moved on immediately it's not traceable as the account will be in fake names and the money moved out of the country.

If you look at this example  both banks (Virgin and Revolut) stopped the transactions and told them it was a scam but the victim ignore it, Virgin asked them if it was going into crypto but they lied about it (they thought an initial £100 had risen to £600 in days so got greedy and wanted to put another £5000 in, eventually raising to £23,000 with loans) - it got to the point Revolut even told them to send a photo with a sign saying they were not being scammed. The scammers put in loan applications and one rang them and asked because they were concerned and again the victims lied about the purpose.

There is only so much you can do when people are too greedy or just unwilling to follow the safety advice being rammed down our throats 

...Banks should require robust ID to be able to open an account so they can't use fake names especially in this day and age when this is rife. ..

The only more or less 'robust ID' is a physical passport brought to a branch.

friolento

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

eskbanker said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

What I can never understand about these type of scams is how the banks allow it to happen in the first place.  You have to jump through many hoops to open an account so they know exactly who these people are and they should be prosecuted.  If the bank doesn't know who they are or have not done sufficient checks then they should be required to reimburse.  It seems to me that if the person has already moved the money then there is nothing that can be done.  Why don't banks work together to solve these scams and keep our money safe?

Banks are required to implement fraud prevention and fraud detection algorithms, but aren't under any obligation to pursue fraudsters on behalf of victims after the event, that's for the police and courts.

Having said that, there have of course been industry initiatives to reduce risk - the one discussed above (the voluntary CRM code to reimburse APP scams) was effectively underpinned by the introduction of Confirmation of Payee, which all but eliminated a range of scams via which fraudsters convinced their victims to send money to the wrong accounts.

Totally agree with that but the banks should know who owns the account that the fraudsters are using by having robust ID requirements to open the account in the first place.  If they did this then the police would know who to prosecute

I think you underestimate the ability of professional fraudsters to fake passports, driving licences and addresses. Banks can only do so much to check. You need to go right back to the authorities that issue ID documents but even they can’t prevent all fakes. For example, stolen ID documents / identifiers  are used by fraudsters 

Nasqueron

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

Nasqueron said:

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

What I can never understand about these type of scams is how the banks allow it to happen in the first place.  You have to jump through many hoops to open an account so they know exactly who these people are and they should be prosecuted.  If the bank doesn't know who they are or have not done sufficient checks then they should be required to reimburse.  It seems to me that if the person has already moved the money then there is nothing that can be done.  Why don't banks work together to solve these scams and keep our money safe?

Sometimes customers are determined to be scammed despite all safeguards. It's not hard to quickly and legitimately setup an account with someone like Monzo or Starling so if the person does it and then moves money to another account owned by the scammers and it's moved on immediately it's not traceable as the account will be in fake names and the money moved out of the country.

If you look at this example  both banks (Virgin and Revolut) stopped the transactions and told them it was a scam but the victim ignore it, Virgin asked them if it was going into crypto but they lied about it (they thought an initial £100 had risen to £600 in days so got greedy and wanted to put another £5000 in, eventually raising to £23,000 with loans) - it got to the point Revolut even told them to send a photo with a sign saying they were not being scammed. The scammers put in loan applications and one rang them and asked because they were concerned and again the victims lied about the purpose.

There is only so much you can do when people are too greedy or just unwilling to follow the safety advice being rammed down our throats 

That's my point.  Banks should require robust ID to be able to open an account so they can't use fake names especially in this day and age when this is rife.  I agree though that will all the publicity you would think people would not continue to fall for these scams.  My mother is 98 and is smart enough to know not to click on links in emails and doesn't take any calls from anyone not in her contacts list.  Even her answer machine message states that she will only call back people from numbers she knows or can look up.  If she can do it I just don't understand why others fall for it.  But you're right, if people are given warnings and they do it anyway then you can't help them

I get your point but you misunderstand this process. The second account is setup in the victim's name - with their legitimate ID etc, no different from me opening an account today so I can do a switch. The newer banks like Revolut, Starling, Monzo etc can have an account done in literally minutes. The scammers though have the login details for the new account or use remote access software on the computer to log it all, then move that money on to their own account after. With the scam I mentioned, the scammers had ID and such to be able to apply for loans in the victims' names because they'd given it all.

As to why, some people are naïve, some overly trusting of institutions - Gen X/Boomers were usually the target because they were more vulnerable to this as they were brought up in the days of a local bank, bank manager who knew them by name etc - though these days it's just as likely young people get caught though usually in different types of scams. The couple in the example were just greedy - put in £100 and a few days later it's worth £600, of course you want to put in £5000 and see it become £20k, £30k, £50k whatever - chasing the £££ without thinking while ignoring everyone telling them it was a scam