I got a CIFAS for receiving £85 for jackets

Hoenir

eskbanker said:

TheBanker said:

The CIFAS marker is not some kind of punishment. It is a matter of fact recording that you allowed your bank account to be used for criminal activity. Its intention is to warn other banks that you pose a high risk if they open accounts for you. 

While you're technically correct, the effective result is to prevent those with markers from accessing mainstream financial services for six years!

Mainstream financial services would prefer to have customers that don't result in them incurring unneccesary costs. Business relationships are two way. 

eskbanker

Hoenir said:

eskbanker said:

TheBanker said:

The CIFAS marker is not some kind of punishment. It is a matter of fact recording that you allowed your bank account to be used for criminal activity. Its intention is to warn other banks that you pose a high risk if they open accounts for you. 

While you're technically correct, the effective result is to prevent those with markers from accessing mainstream financial services for six years!

Mainstream financial services would prefer to have customers that don't result in them incurring unneccesary costs. Business relationships are two way. 

Thanks for the truisms!

sheramber

lr1277 said:

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.

The OP  did not consider there was any fraud I. Loved. A trusted asked him to do him a favour and he agreed.

He had already sent the payment to hos’friend’ before he was swagger of any problem.

Not everybody is street wise when it comes to friends and finance.

Theleak250

How long can this thread go on for? Seems pointless now. 

lr1277

sheramber said:

lr1277 said:

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.

The OP  did not consider there was any fraud I. Loved. A trusted asked him to do him a favour and he agreed.

He had already sent the payment to hos’friend’ before he was swagger of any problem.

Not everybody is street wise when it comes to friends and finance.

That is not my view of the situation on 2 fronts.
@Eyeful said that banks don’t worry about small amounts. My suspicion is that banks will worry about any valued amount if a customer indicates fraud.
As pointed out above not everybody is as savvy as those who frequent these forums, but the OP had sent the former friend some money for which they had not received the jacket. Would that ring alarm bells for you? Either that or the former friend is very persuasive in getting the OP to receive money from a 3rd party for a jacket when the OP did not receive their own jacket.

nottsphil

Ergates said:

mintyjelly447 said:

Grumpy_chap said:

This does not make sense.

The OP purchased a jacket for £50 from "A".
The OP never received the jacket or the £50 refund.
The OP opened a dispute with the bank.
"A" stated they had their account closed because of that.
Then "A" arranged for "B" (who had also bought a jacket) to pay the OP £80.
The £80 was received by the OP.
The OP forwarded the full £80 to "A" (not thinking to retain the £50 owed).
The OP got their bank account closed.

I really struggle to understand how the OP did not think it was fair to withhold the £50, or why the OP cannot see after the event how it all looks dodgy.

I ask myself the question why I did not just take the money owed to me, or why I took the money in the first place. I understand how this does look dodgy, I do not understand however why I have a marker implicated on me that will affect me in this cashless society although I did not do anything fraudulent

I wouldn't get too caught up in the "Why didn't you keep £50 and pay him the difference" as it's irrelevant.   All of the £85 was (likely) obtained fraudulently and you wouldn't have been allowed to keep it.

So what if the amount laundered had been £50 instead of £85, and the OP didn't return it because that was exactly what he was owed?
This leads me to wonder about people selling high value items like vehicles; how can you be at fault if it turns out that the faster payment received was laundered money?

sheramber

lr1277 said:

sheramber said:

lr1277 said:

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.

The OP  did not consider there was any fraud I. Loved. A trusted asked him to do him a favour and he agreed.

He had already sent the payment to hos’friend’ before he was swagger of any problem.

Not everybody is street wise when it comes to friends and finance.

That is not my view of the situation on 2 fronts.
@Eyeful said that banks don’t worry about small amounts. My suspicion is that banks will worry about any valued amount if a customer indicates fraud.
As pointed out above not everybody is as savvy as those who frequent these forums, but the OP had sent the former friend some money for which they had not received the jacket. Would that ring alarm bells for you? Either that or the former friend is very persuasive in getting the OP to receive money from a 3rd party for a jacket when the OP did not receive their own jacket.

It doesn’t matter whether it wound raise alarms bells for me. 

It was the OP  this happened to, not me. 

boingy

This thread might last as long as the CIFAS marker... 

kaMelo

What I struggle to understand is that, as a really good friend, why not just go and speak to them. (give me the jacket or my money back) No need to involve the bank at all.

born_again

Eyeful said:

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

There is no such thing as "Random" checks in banking....