I got a CIFAS for receiving £85 for jackets

jimjames

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 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

Although essentially what you did was fraudulent, you accepted money for a jacket that you could not supply. Your friend was meant to do so but whatever happened about the jacket it was you that accepted the money for it and will get the fraud investigation if the friend doesn't supply it and the person raises a dispute as you did.

friolento

Isn't is back to school yet?

Ergates

mintyjelly447 said:

born_again said:

mintyjelly447 said:

Ayr_Rage said:

born_again said:

mintyjelly447 said:

moneytorques said:

Yeah because I didn't actually do anything fraudulent. He was supposed to be my friend of whom I helped very much along the years so I did not think much of anything and I just trusted him. I see now that this has landed me in a hot mess

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81409709/#Comment_81409709

Then you say people are misunderstanding ?

You contested as you did not get the goods.
Then proceeded to take a payment for him, as his account had been closed due to your actions. & send the money to them. How if their account was closed.

I think you need to step back think about what you are saying. As that hole is getting deeper with each post..

Th OP stated, somewhere, that his friend opened a new account and then sent the £80/85 to that new account.

Yes this is what happened he opened a new account to which I sent it to

So back to the why did they not use that account for the payment?

Sadly you have been caught out as a mule.... Plain & simple 🤷‍♀️

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' so I do not understand how I could have possibly been seen as a money mule and this leading to a misuse of facility marker. Then again I am a young person and I assume you are much older and so know the banking system better than I do but I feel like it is unfair.

The ones (intentionally or unwittingly) working for organised criminal gangs do.

Unfortunately you have been tricked by a (very) small time crook.

Ergates

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.

Exodi

Still doesn't make sense to me, but I'm resigned to accepting it might never.

> You buy a jacket for £50 from a 'friend'.
> The 'friend' doesn't supply the jacket or refund you.
> You report the 'friend' and their account gets frozen.

This I'm all clear on, makes sense.

> The 'friend' suggests that due to the report, they're having trouble refunding you.

OK, a bit odd, but somewhat believable.

> The 'friend' randomly suggests you launder £85 for them, unrelated to your refund, which you oblige.

Wait, hold on, what? Why? When I first read your reply, I just assumed the idea was for you to keep £50 from the transfer and send them the rest, but you just straight up laundered some money for them? Why? If the idea was that they were setting up a new account, why wouldn't they just use that and not involve you? From their perspective there was risk you'd keep some of it otherwise as they owed you money. Or more incredulously, why didn't you keep £50 from it, I know you say you were busy but this seems incredibly obvious? What did you think understand the other transfer was for, if not to refund you? This is a person that has just ripped you off, and you agreed to be an accomplice to another transaction.

mintyjelly447 said:

born_again said:

mintyjelly447 said:

Ayr_Rage said:

born_again said:

mintyjelly447 said:

moneytorques said:

Yeah because I didn't actually do anything fraudulent. He was supposed to be my friend of whom I helped very much along the years so I did not think much of anything and I just trusted him. I see now that this has landed me in a hot mess

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/81409709/#Comment_81409709

Then you say people are misunderstanding ?

You contested as you did not get the goods.
Then proceeded to take a payment for him, as his account had been closed due to your actions. & send the money to them. How if their account was closed.

I think you need to step back think about what you are saying. As that hole is getting deeper with each post..

Th OP stated, somewhere, that his friend opened a new account and then sent the £80/85 to that new account.

Yes this is what happened he opened a new account to which I sent it to

So back to the why did they not use that account for the payment?

Sadly you have been caught out as a mule.... Plain & simple 🤷‍♀️

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' so I do not understand how I could have possibly been seen as a money mule and this leading to a misuse of facility marker. Then again I am a young person and I assume you are much older and so know the banking system better than I do but I feel like it is unfair.

This defence is equally bizarre, and personally I find it quite suspicious it's being used.

Obviously it's still illegal to rob a bank if you 'only' steal 5 figures, the amount is irrelevant.

I think reading between the lines you accept that you acted as a money mule (by saying "I do not understand how I could have possibly been seen as a money mule") so I'd reconsider the continued insistence you've done nothing wrong, I think you're guilty of naivety rather than ignorance. FWIW I don't think either is an excuse (though some on this thread seem to suggest they think it is).

Whenever money mules are recruited on social media, they are not told "WANT TO BE AN ACCOMPLICE LAUNDERING THE PROCEEDS OF ILLEGAL ACTIVITY, WITH SIGNIFICANT PERSONAL FINANCIAL REPERCUSSIONS AND POSSIBLE PRISON TIME? Link in bio to learn more" - they're told "Got a bank account and want to make 4 figures of extra income per month? Link in bio to learn more."

In the latter situation you could understand that anyone signed up is at best incredibly naive/ignorant or at worst complicit. Even if ignorance is excusable, it's hard to apply it in the OP's situation given the OP was undeniably aware that the 'friend' was a scammer because he reported them personally for scamming!

Section62

Exodi said:

...
Wait, hold on, what? Why? When I first read your reply, I just assumed the idea was for you to keep £50 from the transfer and send them the rest, but you just straight up laundered some money for them? Why? If the idea was that they were setting up a new account, why wouldn't they just use that and not involve you? From their perspective there was risk you'd keep some of it otherwise as they owed you money. Or more incredulously, why didn't you keep £50 from it, I know you say you were busy but this seems incredibly obvious? What did you think understand the other transfer was for, if not to refund you? This is a person that has just ripped you off, and you agreed to be an accomplice to another transaction.
...

Part of me wonders if the £85 transaction was a set-up, with the money being sent by the 'friend' or an associate, with the specific intent of then reporting the OP.  Maybe on a 'do unto others...' basis.

sheramber

The bank wouldn't pick up a £85 deposit at random. They must have been alerted to something.

MrFrugalFever

An interesting read here, with many comments that seemingly change the facts as you read on through the thread.

TheBanker has literally got it spot on and summarised exactly what has happened here (extrapolating the information supplied by the OP).

Sorry OP but you only have yourself to blame, the first and only red flag was the 'not received my jacket that I paid £50 for'.

mintyjelly447

MrFrugalFever said:

An interesting read here, with many comments that seemingly change the facts as you read on through the thread.

TheBanker has literally got it spot on and summarised exactly what has happened here (extrapolating the information supplied by the OP).

Sorry OP but you only have yourself to blame, the first and only red flag was the 'not received my jacket that I paid £50 for'.

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

Desmond_Hume

Dispute it then.