Why is this not classed as fraud?

Aylesbury_Duck

Grumpy_chap said:

GortonLad said:

A couple of additional points, isn’t hindsight wonderful? I obviously was not aware that a bank transfer gave no protection and it wouldn’t be so difficult for the banks to flag this before you make the payment.

I don't know which bank you are with or how you made the bank transfer payment.
I do know with my bank (Barclays), whether using online banking or in-branch, the number of warnings about a transfer, especially a large transfer, to a new payee are so numerous and blatant as to be really rather annoying.

I agree.  I regularly move money between accounts across several banks and family members, and all of the banks have at least one step warning me about transfers, not being coerced into them, that they can't be reversed, etc., and that's relatively modest payments to known payees.  Some ask if I want to schedule a later payment rather than rushing to an immediate transfer, another takes me through three check stages.  If it's a new payee, I have to authorise them first, confirm that I know that the payment can't be recovered, etc.  

Maybe OP's bank doesn't do all of these things?

soolin

Grumpy_chap said:

GortonLad said:

A couple of additional points, isn’t hindsight wonderful? I obviously was not aware that a bank transfer gave no protection and it wouldn’t be so difficult for the banks to flag this before you make the payment.

I don't know which bank you are with or how you made the bank transfer payment.
I do know with my bank (Barclays), whether using online banking or in-branch, the number of warnings about a transfer, especially a large transfer, to a new payee are so numerous and blatant as to be really rather annoying.

Same here and that’s with various banks that my OH and I use. The warnings are so frequent they are almost annoying and last year we had cause to send a payment in excess of £3000 to a builder for work completed my OH was physically unable to make the payment without phoning the bank. The bank had flagged the transfer as potentially a scam and my OH had to go through a telephone interview in which he explained why he was transferring the money , confirmed that whilst he didn’t personally ‘know’ the builder he had seen and inspected the work done at our sons property and was happy to sign off that work was completed. That was Nat West.

born_again

user1977 said:

But be aware that it’s incredibly unlikely the police/CPS will get involved even if it is arguably fraud. And even if they did, prosecutions often take years. And wouldn’t get you your money back anyway.

Echoing the above. Police will just say civil matter.

Pollycat

Ansoolin said:

Grumpy_chap said:

GortonLad said:

A couple of additional points, isn’t hindsight wonderful? I obviously was not aware that a bank transfer gave no protection and it wouldn’t be so difficult for the banks to flag this before you make the payment.

I don't know which bank you are with or how you made the bank transfer payment.
I do know with my bank (Barclays), whether using online banking or in-branch, the number of warnings about a transfer, especially a large transfer, to a new payee are so numerous and blatant as to be really rather annoying.

Same here and that’s with various banks that my OH and I use. The warnings are so frequent they are almost annoying and last year we had cause to send a payment in excess of £3000 to a builder for work completed my OH was physically unable to make the payment without phoning the bank. The bank had flagged the transfer as potentially a scam and my OH had to go through a telephone interview in which he explained why he was transferring the money , confirmed that whilst he didn’t personally ‘know’ the builder he had seen and inspected the work done at our sons property and was happy to sign off that work was completed. That was Nat West.

And same here.
The payment was to an existing payee who we have a monthly standing order to pay.
When the transfer didn't go through, we contacted the bank (Virgin) to be told it had been referred to the fraud department.
It took quite a while to sort out. 

eskbanker

GortonLad said:

My question is - Why is this not fraud? He coerced us into paying by bank transfer with the offer of £1000 discount if we paid in full. £1000 in our savings is substantial so we took the offer. He has knowingly taken the cash, and I believe without any intention to supply (he is a limited company and looking at Google since this he has done this a couple of times since our issue) and he's allowed to get away with it, why is this not fraud? 

GortonLad said:

On the point of what difference would it make if it was classed as fraud, if it was I could contact the police and report it as such, he would subsequently end up with a criminal record rather than a CCJ which in reality will have little impact on him.

If you have evidence that he was acting fraudulently, rather than simply a belief, then take that evidence to the police?  Whose failure to label it as fraud do you feel is preventing you from doing that?

kinger101

I'm not sure fraud would stick. Depending on facts, more likely to be civil offense of trading while insolvent.   This has a lower burden if proof, and would make a director responsible for debts.  Would probably require a reasonable person to know there's no possibility of turning the companies finances around 

But how you'd go about that, and whether they have assets from which debt can be recovered is a different matter 

Hoenir

kinger101 said:

I'm not sure fraud would stick. Depending on facts, more likely to be civil offense of trading while insolvent.   This has a lower burden if proof, and would make a director responsible for debts.

Approach the firm handling the insolvency of the Company and make the case. 

kinger101

Hoenir said:

kinger101 said:

I'm not sure fraud would stick. Depending on facts, more likely to be civil offense of trading while insolvent.   This has a lower burden if proof, and would make a director responsible for debts.

Approach the firm handling the insolvency of the Company and make the case. 

Makes sense. Presume OP would be low down in pecking order.

Beeblebr0x

I'd be very concerned about being asked to pay by bank transfer. At the very least I'd insist on paying £100 by credit card to get Section 75 protection.

eskbanker

Beeblebr0x said:

At the very least I'd insist on paying £100 by credit card to get Section 75 protection.

As is always pointed out when someone asserts that, there's no need to pay £100 to secure s75 protection, in that any payment (even a penny) on a credit card achieves that, as long as the item value is at least £100....