I got a CIFAS for receiving £85 for jackets

Theleak250

You have been had mate. They have taken you for a mug. I’d be cutting contact with the said person and lesson to learn. 

friolento

mintyjelly447 said:

boingy said:

That friend is not your friend. They're using you as a money mule and you are now paying the price.

I thought that money mules take £000s, this was £85. I asked him was it legitimate money after I got the marker and he said it was so I don't know what to do anymore

You can contest the marker. First complain to the bank. If they won't remove it, you can appeal to CIFAS, who will then conduct an independent review. If this fails to give you the desired result, you can take it to the FOS. It won't be a fast process but if you are convinced you have done nothing wrong, that's the way to proceed.

Think carefully before you embark on this though - the connection to a person who isn't able to use his own account for his business will not work in your favour.

grumpy_codger

TheBanker said:

grumpy_codger said:

mintyjelly447 said:

grumpy_codger said:

Why did the bank have questions about some minuscule £85? The problem is likely to be with the payer's account.

Does the friend really sell any jackets? If he does, nowadays it's very dangerous to receive bank transfers from strangers.

And I don't think that T&C really "prohibit ... using your account to receive or hold money that belongs to someone else" and that this "sounds like misuse of a personal bank account".

Do you think they sent illicit funds into my account leading me to have this,

IMO, there are two possibilities:

• Your friend doesn't sell anything and just creates visibility of this activity for receiving illicit funds, essentially laundering them.
• Your friend is a victim of a scammer who paid him and then complained to his bank that he was scammed by your friend.

if so, how can I prove my innocence of me not knowing?

Unfortunately, arrogant banks often (usually?) don't want any proofs. In our banking industry the principle "innocent until proved guilty" doesn't exist.

That's not really true - CIFAS rules set out what a bank must do prior to adding a CIFAS marker, and the Financial Ombudsman Service will consider complaints where the customer believes the marker is incorrect. FOS do sometimes order banks to remove the marker, but in the majority of cases they agree that the bank had sufficient evidence to apply the marker.

It is true that the standard of proof is lower than that required to secure a criminal conviction for fraud (balance of probabilities vs beyond reasonable doubt), but it is not true to say that banks apply CIFAS markers without any proof. This proof does not necessarily come from the customer, it can come from the victim, the victim's bank, or other sources.

Many rules exist only to be ignored - because they are too vague and nobody cares to enforce them. If banks really wanted to establish the truth, they'd give a customer at least some opportunity to defend themselves, but typically they don't do this. Is this what you call just "lower standard of proof"?

AFAIK, court decisions are often based on balance of probabilities too, but can you imagine a court that doesn't give other party an opportunity to defend themselves?

I make no comment on what's happened to the OP other than I would be very surprised if what we've been told here is the full story. Note that he has not answered the obvious question - why did his friend need to use his account to receive these funds in the first place? That's an immediate red flag to me and if he's side-stepped the bank's questioning in the same way it won't have helped his case.

The friend can tell various lies, some can be very convincing. The question is whether the customer really broke any rules/conditions or not. Being stupid (no offence intended to the OP) isn't a good enough reason for being reported to CIFAS as a fraudster and getting debanked and cut out from all banking facilities that our cashless life is almost impossible without.

moneytorques

Found this statement from the Financial Ombudsman  on a similar case to the OP.

CIFAS is a fraud prevention membership organisation with a large database. Members, such as Monzo, register markers against individuals, and can view information recorded by other members. Before a member can record a marker, they have to satisfy a high standard of proof, and set standards. These standards include a requirement that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial criminal offence has been committed or attempted. That evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous such that the member could confidently report the conduct to the police.

mintyjelly447

moneytorques said:

Found this statement from the Financial Ombudsman  on a similar case to the OP.

CIFAS is a fraud prevention membership organisation with a large database. Members, such as Monzo, register markers against individuals, and can view information recorded by other members. Before a member can record a marker, they have to satisfy a high standard of proof, and set standards. These standards include a requirement that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial criminal offence has been committed or attempted. That evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous such that the member could confidently report the conduct to the police.

I found the case you're referring to. Judging from it, she actually knew she was doing something fraudulent and received many payments whilst benefitting from it. In my case, I was not benefitting from it and I was simply trying to be helpful to my friend. 

Ayr_Rage

mintyjelly447 said:

moneytorques said:

Found this statement from the Financial Ombudsman  on a similar case to the OP.

CIFAS is a fraud prevention membership organisation with a large database. Members, such as Monzo, register markers against individuals, and can view information recorded by other members. Before a member can record a marker, they have to satisfy a high standard of proof, and set standards. These standards include a requirement that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial criminal offence has been committed or attempted. That evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous such that the member could confidently report the conduct to the police.

I found the case you're referring to. Judging from it, she actually knew she was doing something fraudulent and received many payments whilst benefitting from it. In my case, I was not benefitting from it and I was simply trying to be helpful to my friend. 

Which still begs the question as to why your friend did not want the funds sent directly to them or why they did not have an account for receiving them.

mintyjelly447

Ayr_Rage said:

mintyjelly447 said:

moneytorques said:

Found this statement from the Financial Ombudsman  on a similar case to the OP.

CIFAS is a fraud prevention membership organisation with a large database. Members, such as Monzo, register markers against individuals, and can view information recorded by other members. Before a member can record a marker, they have to satisfy a high standard of proof, and set standards. These standards include a requirement that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial criminal offence has been committed or attempted. That evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous such that the member could confidently report the conduct to the police.

I found the case you're referring to. Judging from it, she actually knew she was doing something fraudulent and received many payments whilst benefitting from it. In my case, I was not benefitting from it and I was simply trying to be helpful to my friend. 

Which still begs the question as to why your friend did not want the funds sent directly to them or why they did not have an account for receiving them.

Basically, initially I bought a jacket from him for £50, which he said he'd meet me and then give it to me. He never gave it to me and I was messaging him over and over and he wasn't responding so I filed a dispute. He then explained to me that he was busy so was unable to meet me and said he'd give me my money back. Since he was my friend and I had been good to him over the years, I believed him and then that is when he asked me if I could take the £80 on his behalf because me disputing my payment meant he couldn't use his. So that is when I took it. I also never got my money back btw til this day and so I decided to report him to action fraud today.

ChirpyChicken

Olenna said:

ChirpyChicken said:

Get an instant access building society account if you struggle opening a bank account. Where you are in the country will influence your choice.

They'll still do CIFAS checks for Building Society accounts...

Never been an issue for passbook based building society accounts. As long as you have the correct ID it isn't an issue

ChirpyChicken

mintyjelly447 said:

Ayr_Rage said:

mintyjelly447 said:

moneytorques said:

Found this statement from the Financial Ombudsman  on a similar case to the OP.

CIFAS is a fraud prevention membership organisation with a large database. Members, such as Monzo, register markers against individuals, and can view information recorded by other members. Before a member can record a marker, they have to satisfy a high standard of proof, and set standards. These standards include a requirement that there are reasonable grounds to believe that a fraud or financial criminal offence has been committed or attempted. That evidence must be clear, relevant and rigorous such that the member could confidently report the conduct to the police.

I found the case you're referring to. Judging from it, she actually knew she was doing something fraudulent and received many payments whilst benefitting from it. In my case, I was not benefitting from it and I was simply trying to be helpful to my friend. 

Which still begs the question as to why your friend did not want the funds sent directly to them or why they did not have an account for receiving them.

Basically, initially I bought a jacket from him for £50, which he said he'd meet me and then give it to me. He never gave it to me and I was messaging him over and over and he wasn't responding so I filed a dispute. He then explained to me that he was busy so was unable to meet me and said he'd give me my money back. Since he was my friend and I had been good to him over the years, I believed him and then that is when he asked me if I could take the £80 on his behalf because me disputing my payment meant he couldn't use his. So that is when I took it. I also never got my money back btw til this day and so I decided to report him to action fraud today.

Not at all dodgy then

retiredbanker1

First line of OP's original post 'Received on behalf of a friend' - I didn't need to read anymore.
Appeals IMO will be fruitless because somewhere in the chain you have received fraudulent funds.