Unauthorised ATM withdrawal- Ombudsman ruled in favour of bank

Ergates

paul_c123 said:

I wonder if there is now a fraud where the card is stolen (undetected, eg a good pick pocket), the cash withdrawal done (they'd need to know the PIN......but.......an 'over the shoulder' attack could get this) then the card is put back into the possession of its rightful owner, eg slipped into a pocket. Instead of the card owner reporting a stolen card and the investigation focusing on that, it turns into a "bank vs customer" battle on whether the card was stolen/used fraudulently/returned or if the customer is being deceitful in claiming they didn't make the ATM transaction.

But.... why?   If you've stolen a card, and you know the PIN, why on earth would you return it?

paul_c123

Ergates said:

paul_c123 said:

I wonder if there is now a fraud where the card is stolen (undetected, eg a good pick pocket), the cash withdrawal done (they'd need to know the PIN......but.......an 'over the shoulder' attack could get this) then the card is put back into the possession of its rightful owner, eg slipped into a pocket. Instead of the card owner reporting a stolen card and the investigation focusing on that, it turns into a "bank vs customer" battle on whether the card was stolen/used fraudulently/returned or if the customer is being deceitful in claiming they didn't make the ATM transaction.

But.... why?   If you've stolen a card, and you know the PIN, why on earth would you return it?

See above post.

dusthug

This a known but difficult MO to detect. In short, it involves a compromised terminal at a TFL barrier. The terminal transmits to a fraudster using a repeater and receiver with a connected card at a nearby ATM.

The wATM ithdrawal normal happens within 2 minutes of the attempted tap at the barrier.

lr1277

My understanding of the situation is the ATM cash withdrawal was before or the same time as the train transaction. So not 2 mins later. At least that is what I understand.

sausage_time

dusthug said:

This a known but difficult MO to detect. In short, it involves a compromised terminal at a TFL barrier. The terminal transmits to a fraudster using a repeater and receiver with a connected card at a nearby ATM.

The wATM ithdrawal normal happens within 2 minutes of the attempted tap at the barrier.

I have not heard of this kind of attack before.  Do you have any links to reports?  It it specific to TFL terminals?

flaneurs_lobster

sausage_time said:

dusthug said:

This a known but difficult MO to detect. In short, it involves a compromised terminal at a TFL barrier. The terminal transmits to a fraudster using a repeater and receiver with a connected card at a nearby ATM.

The wATM ithdrawal normal happens within 2 minutes of the attempted tap at the barrier.

I have not heard of this kind of attack before.  

Probably because it's not happened.

dusthug

flaneurs_lobster said:

sausage_time said:

dusthug said:

This a known but difficult MO to detect. In short, it involves a compromised terminal at a TFL barrier. The terminal transmits to a fraudster using a repeater and receiver with a connected card at a nearby ATM.

The wATM ithdrawal normal happens within 2 minutes of the attempted tap at the barrier.

I have not heard of this kind of attack before.  

Probably because it's not happened.

I guess I need a new day job 🙃

dusthug

sausage_time said:

dusthug said:

This a known but difficult MO to detect. In short, it involves a compromised terminal at a TFL barrier. The terminal transmits to a fraudster using a repeater and receiver with a connected card at a nearby ATM.

The wATM ithdrawal normal happens within 2 minutes of the attempted tap at the barrier.

I have not heard of this kind of attack before.  Do you have any links to reports?  It it specific to TFL terminals?

www.spectator.co.uk/article/fraud-victim-dont-bank-on-getting-your-money-back/

That's the closest I've seen reported publicly.

lookbook

dusthug said:

sausage_time said:

dusthug said:

This a known but difficult MO to detect. In short, it involves a compromised terminal at a TFL barrier. The terminal transmits to a fraudster using a repeater and receiver with a connected card at a nearby ATM.

The wATM ithdrawal normal happens within 2 minutes of the attempted tap at the barrier.

I have not heard of this kind of attack before.  Do you have any links to reports?  It it specific to TFL terminals?

www.spectator.co.uk/article/fraud-victim-dont-bank-on-getting-your-money-back/

That's the closest I've seen reported publicly.

That's a good read.

AmityNeon

So as far as banks are concerned:

• Customers are always lying if they claim to be victims of inexplicable fraudulent withdrawals.
• Aside from cases involving theft or coercion, ATM withdrawals are always authorised by the customer.
• They will certainly never investigate CCTV or divert resources towards courses of action that could potentially result in monetary loss via paying compensation, considering the infallibility of inherently-authorised ATM withdrawals.

Banks are not on the side of customers; bank protect only themselves from fraud, which includes attempts at fraud by their own customers.

Avoid having debit cards altogether, or keep cards frozen except at the immediate point of use (NatWest had the cheek to advise me not to do this because freezes aren't designed for such use cases — I don't care).