Update: Do you support our super-complaint on scams?

Scenario 1: A bank makes a mistake – the mistake of paying some money into your bank account. The bank realises the mistake, and asks for the money back. Can you refuse? No. You are not allowed to keep the money – you must pay it back.
Scenario 2: A victim of fraud makes a mistake – the mistake of paying money into the fraudster’s bank account. The victim realises the mistake, and asks for the money back. The fraudster’s bank asks the fraudster to return the money. Can the fraudster refuse? Yes. (This happens all the time, hence the super complaint). The banks have prioritised the fraudster’s instructions over the victims, and the fraudster keeps the money.

I worked for over 20 years in a bank. Banks have a duty of care to protect customers from loss. In my opinion, the fraudster’s bank should be the one liable for the loss of money obtained by deception. A fraudster will either need genuine ID to open a bank account, in which case the fraudster can be traced and prosecuted. Or, the fraudster will use fake ID, which the bank should spot and reject. A fraudster can’t scam a victim out of money if they don’t have a bank account to receive the money. Banks have security checks in place to prevent accounts being opened fraudulently, or for fraudulent purposes. If a fraudster opens a bank account, it means that the bank has failed to complete the appropriate security checks. The bank’s inability to prevent the fraudster’s account being opened or being used for suspicious activity facilitates the crime, hence it should held be responsible for the victim’s loss. If banks know they will be responsible for the loss, they will be more diligent in identifying fraudsters at the application stage.

Hi I was scammed out of £8,200 from an advert in my local press have been down all the routs open to me to try and reclaim my money banks should be liable as even with proof from metropoleten police that the account I paid money to was opened by a person who was not registered at address given or indeed in this country so Barclays opening bank account policy’s are not very effective and financial ombudsman won’t do anything unless the grievance is with the bank you hold accounts with anything I can do I will I hope that the banks will be made to account for their shortfalls in opening of mule bank account s

After being caught in a scam in which I was sent headed notepaper of a fake company, it’s name differing by only one word from that of a genuine one, as money goes through the banks, could they not program the names of real companies, so that the fakes are identified and banks have an agreed response to identify and locate potential fraudsters. A watching brief is possible, via databanks, but specific regulation and response mechanisms all need to be devised and function. Their must be penalties even for intention to defraud, otherwise it is attractive. Did not HM Govt cut their watch on scams to save our money? That, too, could be argued for reinstatement.

My mother who is 79 years of age, was scammed out of £11,000 by an unsolicited caller.
It was only by good fortune that they didn’t get the rest of her life savings.
She heard a radio programme about these scams just before she transferred the rest of her savings.
While the police and bank have gone through the motions of being helpful and sympathetic, she’s lost her money.
When I went on holidays to Peru recently and tried to use my Credit Card, I was blocked.
Why? Because if the card was being used fraudulently, the bank was at risk of being liable!!!
So why, oh why do the banks not look at an extremely unusual bank transfer in the same way??
Because they are not liable and really don’t give a sugar?
All that needs to happen is that if an unusual transaction is flagged up, that questions are asked and a time-lapse is enacted.

Banks basic function is to keep their depositors’ money safe. The only reason I have a bank account is to store my money, Visa and MasterCard can syphon my money out of any repository to enable me to easily spend it. They are separate from the banks.

They use “business intelligence” (BI) software and appliances to milk every penny out of us by recording our transaction characteristics to enable them to offer us products and services based on the patterns and characteristics these systems track.

They are capable of stopping my card if I go over their limit, a limit conveniently beyond the one I agreed to when I signed up by the way, which they allow for a fee on each and every transaction they choose to allow. they seem able to stop me spending more money very precisely when it suits them and their fees, but not when it suits me.

Fraudsters, those that are not banks clearly, should be as easy for the banks to detect, as well as transaction types commonly associated with fraud as it is for them to target us based on our spending patterns, etc. How is it that an OAP can possibly be allowed to transfer the ENTIRE contents of their account, probably using a method like online banking or telephone banking they do not commonly (in some cases have never used) use, to a third party account in one go?

To claim no responsibility in these types of situations is insulting to our intelligence. It shows that their predatory cultures, that lead to Libor fixing, market collusion on interest rates, wholesale money laundering, PPI lying and fraud, etc., etc, etc., are still in place.

Protect our money you jerks, it’s what we pay you for, and when you blow it own it and compensate those whose money you allowed to be stolen. It isn’t like making sure retirees aren’t ruined by your lax standards and procedures is going to materially affect your multimillion annual bonuses, is it?

The nerve of these people.

https://newage-bank.com. registered as NEW AGE BITCOIN LTD has done very big scam. On this website any individual can invest in the form of Bitcoins by purchasing different cards with different validity periods. Rate of return on buying these cards was ranging from 200%-500%. That means anyone whosoever invests can double, triple or multiply their Bitcoins by 5 times based on different validity hold on that investments.

Now this company has given these returns for almost more than 45 days. All of sudden on the eve of Good Friday on 14th April, 2017 they have stopped giving withdrawals. People have thought this might be a temporary issue with the website. So it would get recovered. However on 21st April, 2017 their website got disappeared. Now here is not the end of this scam story. People are even taking an advantage of this situation to do more scam by building another website & gaining money from public to get their refunds.

Now I have tried to report this to Action Fraud. Their support advisers have confirmed that they cannot help in reporting this issue. They suggested me to this website. Now Aleksandra from Support has given me this link. Being a Non-citizen of UK they cannot help me. I am not sure what I am suppose to do. Because suspect is a resident of UK.

As per the details has been supplied by suspect on their website https://newage-bank.com.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10632891.

Company Registered Address:
68 Hatton Garden, London, United Kingdom, EC1N 8JY

Director of Company (KAI WALLIS) Address:
428 Southcroft Road, Streatham, London, United Kingdom, SW16 6QX

Contact # +442070433810

I have dependent old parents. I have lost my job. Have kept my savings with them thinking that would help me to sustain for some period unless I get good job. Feeling helpless & cheated. Don’t know what to do & I am sure that I am not alone. There would be certainly poor UK residents who must have also got caught by these fraudsters.

We have just been paid compensation for PPI Insurance Policies we knew Nothing about. Halifax, Bradford and Bingley, and Cheltenham and Gloucester. But mainly the Halifax. We took out one PPI Policy and were paid for Seven we knew Nothing about.
NO Bank has been Prosecuted for PPI. Mis-Selling Balderdash; it is Fraud.

I feel that banks need to be very careful where compo is concerned, after all an awful lot of folk fall for scams, yet every where you turn you are bombarded with warnings yet people STILL give bank details out over the phone for instance. Also why give building work to folk at the door. Ask Help the Aged if you are elderly for advice – they have lists of reliable people. Always remember scammers are clever people and nobody is completely safe; but there is being careful and being stupid.

I have to say that the “test” for spotting fake emails to see if they are scams or not is a very poor test. I have many ways of checking if an email is a scam or not. Often there are rollovers on buttons on emails. By rolling over but not pressing, you can see where it goes. You cannot do this with your test. I can check source code. Where it cam from and a whole lot more without opening up any email.

Banks don’t care. Police don’t care. The bank receiving the money should be made liable if a fraud is proven. The banks helping these fraudsters would think twice before releasing the ill gotten gains to the fraudster if the bank was made liable or charged with aiding & abetting the crime!!!

I work for a a fraud department for a UK bank dealing with Faster Payments. I will not defend the banks customer servicing as its shockingly poor on so many levels. However there are some plainly incorrect satements in some of these comments that are big contributors to fraud prevention. When it comes to straight forward fraud the bank will become the victim and refund your money within legal timescales. The bank then recovers the money for itself if possible. This is often easiest with credit cards as chargebacks to retailers can be done.

However when it’s a bank to bank transfer like Faster Payments the ability to recover the money is reduced. The bank will still become the victim and you will get your money back within timescales. The benefit of the doubt is with the customer.

Now when a customer is socially eningeered or scammed, and it’s done by bank transfer, recovery is unlikely. Firstly the fraudster can move the money quickly- within 2 hours. Secondly the beneficiary account is sometimes a second victim account. Thirdly money paid to Moneygram or Westerunion means it has gone international.

The bank I work for will fraud check against this type of fraud. The problem is it is the customer who makes or authorises the payment, provides remote access to their own device and logs into Internet Banking on the fraudsters behalf.

The only reliable way to protect people against this is to interrupt payments that match the MO and verbally speak to the customer about your concerns.

Some people are appreciative of the checks but others are resistive, abusive and downright lie. The bank I work for does more often than not provide refunds in this situation. I have even seen people be refunded despite been given forewarning they might be about to become a scam victim.

Banks have not helped themselves when comes to communicating with customers and underresouced serivce levels. However when comes to fraud prevention a lot of customers could do with some better communication themselves. What doesn’t help is failing to answer security questions and saying. “Why are you stopping me transferring MY money”. People will log official complaints that the they felt their payments were interrupted unfairly because it is “clearly me making the payment”.

What might help everyone through is if Faster Paymets worked a bit more like mobile payments. When you make a mobile payment to a phone number the beneficiary details will automically show as they have been recorded on the beneficiary debit card.

Straight out Faster Payments are determined only by sort code and account number. It would be helpful to see the same info in this payment type as a mobile payment.