Internet scams

[Wongo]

Listened to the radio in the shed last night and they were talking about internet scams.

Anyway, this guy subscribed to a free online lottery site. He gave them his bank account details. What happened was this US site would automatically withdraw $12 from his account every month.

After a few months he realised that it is a scam. He tried to unsubscribe it, he contacted the site with no luck (Obviously). He went to the bank but they couldn't help (Obviously). The bank couldn’t help because they need authorization from both parties to stop the automatic transition. Sounds a rough to me.

So knowing it is a scam, knowing your customer is being robbed and yet the bank is not able to help. WHY?

We are able to put a washing machine on the moon but we are not able to protect each other. What is the DEAL guys?

[lesmeyer]

The way I see it, is that it is your money in the bank account, and you should be able to decide if any payment should be stopped/rejected.
Les

[Iain]

Seem to recall a small claims case against one of the big 4, payments to a collection agency, bill paid but bank continued to process as they said that the agency had to cancel the withdrawals, not the holder of the account.
Small claims agreed with the holder of the account and was compensated by the bank.

[silentC]

The bank couldn’t help because they need authorization from both parties to stop the automatic transition
Sounds like bollocks to me. If my bank told me that, I'd close the account on the spot. Pretty hard to transfer $12 from a closed account.

[Iain]

But I bet the bastards would get you for something, or die trying.

[Wongo]

I'd close the account on the spot.

One caller, who seemed to know a bit about banking, said the other party can still withdraw $$ from the bank and the guy is still responsible for the money. :? :?

It is crazy and I don’t understand the logic behind it but that’s what he said.

[silentC]

Yeah but if the account doesn't exist any more how can any transfer take place? The system should fail. I'm sure I've had that situation in the past with direct debits where we have closed an account and forgotten to advise someone of the new account number. The bank rejects the transaction and the party processing the direct debit contacts you to let you know. Note this is different to a dishonour where the account exists but there is no money in it. The bank hits you up for a dishonour fee in that case.

[Wongo]

I know it doesn’t make sense, but the guy said it with so much confidence.

[AlexS]

But I bet the bastards would get you for something, or die trying.

That sounds like a good result!

[Gra]

As the money is coming out of the customers account, they can cancel the transaction, if told otherwise, escalate the issue, go to the regional manager if necessary (They get off having to talk to customers, so you will get it resolved real quick)

If this doesnt work, All banks have a fraud department (no they are not the ones setting the fees). All the person has to do is contact their bank, advise that the transaction is fraudulent and they must put the transfer on hold and investigate.

If all of these fail, its time for the ombudsman, and that will have it sorted out quickly (Just the threat will usually bring the bank into line)

(Yes I work for one...)

[ozwinner]

(Yes I work for one...)


So you know all the scams, NATurally? :U

Al :roll:

[Gra]

So you know all the scams, NATurally? :U

Al :roll:

Of course, professional interest only :;:;:D

[corbs]

I know it doesn’t make sense, but the guy said it with so much confidence.

Everything I post in here I do with confidence, whether you choose to believe me is your choice :-:wink::D

[Cliff Rogers]

Mr. Wong..... Pardon me if I appear sloooowwww bbbuuuutttt....
Why did we put a washing machine on the moon? :?

[Stuart]

Haven't you seen all the dust up there? Too much work to hand-wash. And the grey water is great for the plants :D

[lesmeyer]

.....
Why did we put a washing machine on the moon? :?
To launder the money ??? :D
Les

[Cliff Rogers]

To launder the money ??? :D
Les
Was there an ATM there too? :?

[bsrlee]

Saw another one of these scams on one of the nodding head shows on after the news. Elderly woman authorised a single transaction, bank kept accepting transactions from scammers, she closed the account & advised the bank the claims were fraudulent. Bank then deducted money from another account to keep paying the scammers - I think $20,000 was mentioned, these guys were ripping about a thou' a time.

I don't know the ultimate outcome as it was one of those 'keep watching all week' stories. I ( and several friends) wonder that someone doesn't go the bank managers for 'aid & abet' to fraud/stealing, or maybe just buy a hot shottie and a box of shells & go postal at the local branch when they reach bankrupcy.

[Gra]

Saw another one of these scams on one of the nodding head shows on after the news. Elderly woman authorised a single transaction, bank kept accepting transactions from scammers, she closed the account & advised the bank the claims were fraudulent. Bank then deducted money from another account to keep paying the scammers - I think $20,000 was mentioned, these guys were ripping about a thou' a time.

I don't know the ultimate outcome as it was one of those 'keep watching all week' stories. I ( and several friends) wonder that someone doesn't go the bank managers for 'aid & abet' to fraud/stealing, or maybe just buy a hot shottie and a box of shells & go postal at the local branch when they reach bankrupcy.

The bank would be fully liable for all of the unauthorized transactions. Give it to the bank in writing, I rescind the authorization for the withdrawl, keep a copy, any withdrawals after that, they are liable for.

[Wongo]

Sometimes I just don’t know what the banks are thinking.

[journeyman Mick]

Sometimes I just don’t know what the banks are thinking.

Simple,
"Make more money"
that's all they ever think.:~

Mick

[Wongo]

So it is not too harsh to say that they are all bastards. :o

[journeyman Mick]

So it is not too harsh to say that they are all bastards. :o

I think that's rather harsh for any bastards, being lumped in with banks.:U

Mick

[silentC]

You need to keep a few things in mind:

1. Bank staff are human too. They just want to do their job and get paid like everyone else.

2. Everyone hates banks until they need more money than they've got to buy something.

3. There are very few, if any, people working for banks who understand all of the rules and processes. You can easily get different answers to the same question from different people.

4. Privitisation means that the focus is on return to the shareholder. That is how the whole internal appraisal system is set up. If you are not contributing to the share price, you are not doing your job. This is achieved by making your job rating reflect that of your manager, which reflects that of his manager and on up the tree.

5. People are actively encouraged and even rewarded for coming up with new ways of getting money out of people. That is their sole purpose.

6. They are all bastards.

[Zed]

7. they are all bastards

8. they are all bastards

9. they are all bastards

10. profits come first.

[journeyman Mick]

I too need to make a return for the owners of my business (wife and I). I'm always looking for ways to increase my return and minimise my costs and effort, but the quality of the job and my job satisfaction comes before the money. Don't know how people can live with themselves. whatever line of work they're in, if their job focus is on screwing the customer.:~

Mick

[silentC]

if their job focus is on screwing the customer
They don't see it that way. You're taught that you are providing the customer with a service, for which he must pay. I'm sure that most back room banking boffins think that charging fees for services is fair and can't understand what all the fuss is about.

As for job satisfaction, the people working in branches get very little of that but they have no control whatsoever over the circumstances under which their employer chooses to conduct their business. It's not much different from being in the infantry - you follow orders and take the consequences while the people who send you out sit back and view the "overall picture".

There are worse jobs though. Like being a telemarketer :wink:

[Sturdee]

Whilst not excusing Banks as such we haven't heard the real problem but like the alledged current afffairs shows (like Today Tonight and A Currant Affair) the boards collective venom is directed at the Banks. Makes a change as usually it is Real Estate Agents or Bunnings.:((


I would like to see what authority was actually given to the Bank and then what actions the customer took in this case to actually cancel that authority. It may well be that the wording of the authority was such that she could not cancel it without approval of the other party and the Bank may well be innocent.


Bank's don't usually ignore customers unless the authority that she signed was legally binding on them. Also did she actually close the account and reopen it again or just changed card and account number which doesn't alter the legal effect of the authority signed. None of that was canvassed except that Bank's are all bastards again.


Then, ofcourse the Bank's charging fees for services rendered comes up.:(( Sure in the past they didn't charge for all things but they made up for it by charging higher interest rates on borrowed funds then.


When I worked in the Bank there were many hidden fees that are now shown openly ( eg. there were 5 hidden fees in every currency transaction, hidden in the conversion rate, that are now shown as one open commission). Personally I prefer to know about them so work out how to avoid them.


May be you know of a business that doesn't charge for its services but I don't, so please get of the I hate banks bandwagon and start to wonder what stupid thing the customer did to get stung.


Peter.

[ozwinner]

But Sturdee its fun to hate banks...at least we are leaving Bunnings alone, now imagine if Bunnings opened a bank..:o

Al :q

[Stuart]

Mmmmmmm Bunnings Credit Card Droooooool http://www.ubeaut.biz/homer.gif

[Groggy]

Cripes, is it the banks fault at all? What about the scammer? Why aren't people railing against the police for not going after them and government for not legislating against it or making agreements with other nations to nail these opportunists?

I am not a favourite of the banks, but I am not convinced they are at fault here. Especially since the media are involved, assuming they have provided all the facts is a big leap of faith.

What if it is a joint account? Both parties would have to agree, this is a big problem with marriage bust ups. Was the contract he signed clear and unambiguous and he simply didn't read it? If so, it would be illegal for the bank not to honour it. As far as the bank is concerned, they are legally obliged to provide the money as the form is signed by the client, they break the law until the client legally advises them otherwise.

If people are p**sed off with banks now, imagine if they did things illegally as well as (some say) immorally. Don't forget that the rules the banks operate under are largely due to prior legal actions brought by customers or are legislated by government.

[ozwinner]

Mmmmmmm Bunnings Credit Card Droooooool http://www.ubeaut.biz/homer.gif

Now theres a thought!!

Al :2tsup:

[Chesand]

Wesfarmers own Bunnings
Wesfarmers have just OAMPS - an insurance based company.
What next? The Bunnings credit card may not be too far away

[Cliff Rogers]

...
Wesfarmers have just OAMPS - an insurance based company....
Wesfarmers have been into insurance since before they even became Wesfarmers.

[Cliff Rogers]

Just a little one for the other side....

My wife is in Melbourne for a week doing some shopping. Today Diners Club rang her on her mobile to check 'cos her address is in FNQ & there was a heap of sales going on it in Melbourne. :D

Just checking, just in case, very apologetic when they found out that it was legit.

How's that for service? :2tsup:

[scooter]

Not quite good enough in my book, Cliff.

Now, if they had rung you to approve her purchases, fair enough... :D

[Cliff Rogers]

Not quite good enough in my book, Cliff.

Now, if they had rung you to approve her purchases, fair enough... :D

It is her credit card, she has to pay the bill. :p

To be fair, it is her first big shopping trip since we went to HK 7 months ago.

[joe greiner]

Just a little one for the other side....

My wife is in Melbourne for a week doing some shopping. Today Diners Club rang her on her mobile to check 'cos her address is in FNQ & there was a heap of sales going on it in Melbourne. :D

Just checking, just in case, very apologetic when they found out that it was legit.

How's that for service? :2tsup:

I had a similar experience a few years ago with Discover (I think). But without even leaving town. Two purchases of gasoline (petrol?) close together in time. First one was a gallon in portable container because I had run out and friend gave me a lift to station; second was fillup. Firstly, they hastened to assure me they weren't peddling a new card. Most uplifting.

Joe

[silentC]

Was the contract he signed clear and unambiguous and he simply didn't read it? If so, it would be illegal for the bank not to honour it. As far as the bank is concerned, they are legally obliged to provide the money as the form is signed by the client, they break the law until the client legally advises them otherwise.
I don't think anything was signed:


Anyway, this guy subscribed to a free online lottery site. He gave them his bank account details. What happened was this US site would automatically withdraw $12 from his account every month.

[Groggy]

I don't think anything was signed:Part of my issue with this is the media don't appear to have provided the full facts as usual, just enough to get a bit of drama going. Whay can't they say what the bank must have before it transfers money, exactly what the guy gave to the online site and precisely what is required to stop the transfers in future.

I feel sorry for the guy, but where has he been? Giving bank details over the internet is something to be very cautious about. Did the media even hint that perhaps the user needs to take a little responsibility for this himself?

There really are a lot of unknowns, so many that it is unfair to just point a finger at the bank. I distrust the media more than banks - at least I can take a bank to court because they are regulated to reasonable behaviours.

[Sturdee]

Part of my issue with this is the media don't appear to have provided the full facts as usual, just enough to get a bit of drama going.

My point as well, whilst not knowing the details of this case, I have received similar type of offers (by mail) from a Dutch company inviting me to join their German Tatslotto buying syndicate. Amongst the papers is an IRREVOCABLE authority to be given to my bank authorizing them to take out moneys regularly until cancelled by both of us in writing.

So if I wanted to leave the syndicate I would need the syndicate approval before the authority could be cancelled, else my bank would have to continue to pay the moneys until I closed my account with that bank and went to another bank.

As the authority is addressed to the bank closing and reopening an account with that bank, or transferring to another branch of the same bank, doesn't invalidate that authority and it would have remained in effect.

Didn't do it because I'm no sucker.:p


Peter.

[Stuart]

I have a low opinion of banks, and an even lower one of the press (not all of them.....but they get tarred with the same brush). I can't stand how they get stories wrong, or one-sided, or misquote, interview a person, and can't even get their job title, or rank correct etc etc.

I refuse point blank to watch that trash on 7 - today tonight or whatever it is. If the story is actually true, and a balanced view, then other more professional news agencies will also be reporting it.

[peter_sm]

I'm not going to let anyone in on my little secret millions I have coming from Nigeria. It is all Miiiiine