I got a CIFAS for receiving £85 for jackets

Kim_13

Grumpy_chap said:

mintyjelly447 said:

I thought money mules from what I've seen and heard have £1000s of pounds put into their account. I was sent £85 with the reference referring to the jacket 'uniqlo'

Why would a High Street retail brand be selling via random individuals over non-corporate social media channels?

Quite possibly, had the £85 transaction processed without a hitch, the subsequent transactions would have been ever increasing amounts.  In that regard maybe you got off lightly.

I don’t think there is such thing as got off likely, unless you mean the police are unlikely to be knocking at the door - if you have a CIFAS marker you have a CIFAS marker. OP won’t have any better access to banking facilities until it falls off having naively accepted a small amount (shoplifting of that amount now seems to have become a trivial matter) for someone they knew than a person who had knowingly laundered four figures or more for someone they made contact with online. 

The latter is the bigger risk to society - someone naively accepting one payment believing they were responsible for that person not being able to access their account would probably ask more questions when asked to do it again and refuse. But until such time as the system is changed (I support the idea of accounts only capable of receiving credits of salaries, pensions and any savings held in their own name or income due from these suggested upthread, and think that only serious criminals should be entirely cut off) that doesn’t help the OP.

Writing to your MP highlighting the effects of the marker, lack of education in schools that what you did is considered fraud and money laundering and that the ‘punishment’ is excessive for someone guilty of naivety would be more likely to be successful than challenging a marker that is a matter of fact. If parliament chose, markers could be different depending on the severity of the offence, with banks required to accept those with the least serious for basic accounts. Appealing the marker itself is a dead end - many things have a test of what the average person would have known and the average person would have realised that the person paying the £85 wasn’t getting the jacket and therefore accepting the money was wrong.

born_again

Kim_13 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

mintyjelly447 said:

I thought money mules from what I've seen and heard have £1000s of pounds put into their account. I was sent £85 with the reference referring to the jacket 'uniqlo'

Why would a High Street retail brand be selling via random individuals over non-corporate social media channels?

Quite possibly, had the £85 transaction processed without a hitch, the subsequent transactions would have been ever increasing amounts.  In that regard maybe you got off lightly.

I don’t think there is such thing as got off likely, unless you mean the police are unlikely to be knocking at the door - if you have a CIFAS marker you have a CIFAS marker. OP won’t have any better access to banking facilities until it falls off having naively accepted a small amount (shoplifting of that amount now seems to have become a trivial matter) for someone they knew than a person who had knowingly laundered four figures or more for someone they made contact with online. 

The latter is the bigger risk to society - someone naively accepting one payment believing they were responsible for that person not being able to access their account would probably ask more questions when asked to do it again and refuse. But until such time as the system is changed (I support the idea of accounts only capable of receiving credits of salaries, pensions and any savings held in their own name or income due from these suggested upthread, and think that only serious criminals should be entirely cut off) that doesn’t help the OP.

Writing to your MP highlighting the effects of the marker, lack of education in schools that what you did is considered fraud and money laundering and that the ‘punishment’ is excessive for someone guilty of naivety would be more likely to be successful than challenging a marker that is a matter of fact. If parliament chose, markers could be different depending on the severity of the offence, with banks required to accept those with the least serious for basic accounts. Appealing the marker itself is a dead end - many things have a test of what the average person would have known and the average person would have realised that the person paying the £85 wasn’t getting the jacket and therefore accepting the money was wrong.

Fraud is fraud no matter how small the amount. 

Naivety like ignorance is not a excuse or a defence for breaking the law.

OP knew the the other person had a new account. So no excuse there.

ChirpyChicken

Get used to using a passbook......

Eyeful

mintyjelly447 said:

The thing is it was not a random guy that I received the money from, it was literally someone that I had been friends with and had helped so much so I just thought that taking the £85 and sending it to him would be fine. But yeah I was naive an it's landed me in trouble, I, however don't think I should have got a CIFAS marker

You except  £80 into your personal bank account from someone.
Then you send the £80 on to someone.
This does sound like the way "money mules" work.
You had already reported one of the persons for not providing you with a jacket you paid £50 for!

Persons cannot say they have never heard of "Money Mules",
I have seen warnings on TV & in the press about how they operate & consequence's when caught.
I understand there are also warnings on social media about them. 

1. How long had you known the person before this insistent occurred? 
2. What ways did your " helped so much " take?
3. Banks do not normally take notice of such small sums. So, have you done any "financial favours" you have not mentioned?
4. Why did you not deduct the £50 they owed you & send them £30?
5. You do not think you should have got a CIFAS marker. So what do you think should have happened to you? 

lr1277

I disagree with @Eyeful, though I have no actual concrete evidence.

My suspicion is that banks will take notice if a customer makes a complaint for any amount sent to another person that is then reported as fraud. Whatever the type of fraud.

In this case the person who sent the OP £85 expecting a jacket which they didn't then receive would have reported the OP's account for fraud. The other actions by the OP didn't help. So no surprise the CIFAS marker was applied.

Edited to add: OP you could have returned the £85 to the sender or at least got your bank to do it instead of sending it to your former friend (deduction or not). It might have meant you are in less trouble than you are in now. No idea. Hopefully there is no next time for this advice to be applicable.

Eyeful

Unless it was a random spot check, something must have caused the bank to take a look at the OP's account. 

Section62

Eyeful said:

Unless it was a random spot check, something must have caused the bank to take a look at the OP's account. 

It could be something else, but the most obvious reason for the transaction being investigated is that the person sending the £85 payment made a complaint to the bank they didn't get what they paid for and wanted their money back.  I don't think there is much of a mystery about that.

eskbanker

Eyeful said:
Persons cannot say they have never heard of "Money Mules",

I have seen warnings on TV & in the press about how they operate & consequence's when caught.
I understand there are also warnings on social media about them. 

You've heard of money mules so that means everyone must have, with no exceptions?

Eyeful

eskbanker said:

Eyeful said:
Persons cannot say they have never heard of "Money Mules",

I have seen warnings on TV & in the press about how they operate & consequence's when caught.
I understand there are also warnings on social media about them. 

You've heard of money mules so that means everyone must have, with no exceptions?

I accept the point you are making.
With the amount of publicity given to money mules, I think that persons who are most likely to become one, will have heard of them.
The OP has as they stated "I thought that money mules take £000s, this was £85".

eskbanker

Eyeful said:

eskbanker said:

Eyeful said:
Persons cannot say they have never heard of "Money Mules",

I have seen warnings on TV & in the press about how they operate & consequence's when caught.
I understand there are also warnings on social media about them. 

You've heard of money mules so that means everyone must have, with no exceptions?

I accept the point you are making.
With the amount of publicity given to money mules, I think that persons who are most likely to become one, will have heard of them.
The OP has as they stated "I thought that money mules take £000s, this was £85".

Personally I think the opposite, that those most likely to become money mules are less likely to have heard of the term than those who are cognisant enough to understand both the term and its significance, such as regulars on here!