No worries mate. I work on the large corporate banking side of BB. It is frightening the levels of sophistication that these gangs have and fraud/cyber is on the agenda for every single meeting that we have. Really hope something can be done for your dad. At the very least, Clydesdale need to explain themselves with regard to the account they have opened and allowed to be used in this way. Potentially, someone with a Clydesdale account may have been scammed as well, but their Fraud Team should be investigating.
@iamdan really sorry to hear that your dad has been hit by scammers but try not to be too hard on him as these people are extremely sophisticated and adept at sounding genuine. It's what they do for a living, so it's not surprising.
Hopefully Natwest will look kindly on what's happened and whether they failed in any duty of care to your dad. Similarly Clydesdale have some questions to answer in terms of KYC and spotting unusual transactions.
I'd reiterate the advice given to be on the lookout for further scam approaches in the future. Your dad will now be on a "sucker list", which is an ugly word they use to describe individuals who have shown a willingness to engage with scam attempts.
This is very valuable info to scammers and likely to lead to further attempts so you might want to invest in a call blocking device also which might be of some help.
Sadly the punishment for those committing such despicable acts no longer fits the crime and the crooks know that holding up a bullion delivery at a bank is now a mugs game.
I mean why go down for a ten stretch for armed robbery when you'll be unlucky to even get a custodial sentence for fraud. Sorry that your Dad has been caught up in this @iamdan fingers crossed for some positive news.
Whenever anyone calls you stating they're someone else always ask them to confirm something for you:
What's the last 4 digits of the card you have on file for me? When was the last time you debited me? When was the last time I spoke to you and was it online, email or phone?
This is info any real company will have access to, and will be able to confirm for you.
If they can't tell them to f*** off and correspond with you via an official letter.
They won't actually do this though until you have given them security information to prove who you are. Something I wouldn't recommend.
Sadly the punishment for those committing such despicable acts no longer fits the crime and the crooks know that holding up a bullion delivery at a bank is now a mugs game.
I mean why go down for a ten stretch for armed robbery when you'll be unlucky to even get a custodial sentence for fraud. Sorry that your Dad has been caught up in this @iamdan fingers crossed for some positive news.
I think we shouldn't fall into the trap of believing that no one ever either gets caught and that if convicted they never get a custodial sentences. They do on both accounts but it is true to say that fraud cases are more difficult to pursue because of a number of factors, not least of all because they are extremely resource intensive and also the international cooperation required between the authorities. That said we do have scammers operating in this country too.
But when there are telesales operations targetting UK victims from short term, rented accomodation in Spain that is utilising multiple bank accounts bouncing around the globe to process the money it's never going to be an attractive proposition for the police to investigate. Especially when there's a junkie recently released from prison they know is doing low level burglaries who drinks in a certain pub they can pick up whenever they want and clear up multiple offences at the same time.
Doesn't make it right in any way, and the victims are not seeing justice but when you're in an either/or situation the authorities are by necessity going to factor in the likelihood of success into the equation as to whether to pursue fraud cases.
Echo that, there are too many people trying to rip people off. More needs to be done to catch them and then the punishment has to be severe. Hope something can be done for him - this is very upsetting. Watched GMB this morning to see a carer who knicked up to £89k of a frail old lady, didn't even get prison!
You can be sure that had the £89K been nicked from a business institution that carer would certainly have got prison.
Elderly, vulnerable, retired formerly hardworking individuals don't matter in 21st Century Britain.
Why whenever somebody raises an issue you try and make a total irrelevant point. It is totally garbage as usual. I feel sorry for some-one so twisted as yourself.
Echo that, there are too many people trying to rip people off. More needs to be done to catch them and then the punishment has to be severe. Hope something can be done for him - this is very upsetting. Watched GMB this morning to see a carer who knicked up to £89k of a frail old lady, didn't even get prison!
You can be sure that had the £89K been nicked from a business institution that carer would certainly have got prison.
Elderly, vulnerable, retired formerly hardworking individuals don't matter in 21st Century Britain.
Why whenever somebody raises an issue you try and make a total irrelevant point. It is totally garbage as usual. I feel sorry for some-one so twisted as yourself.
All about experience and opinion.
Sentences for crimes against individuals are generally less than crimes against business yet the emotional and traumatic effect of the crime is far greater for an individual than for an impersonal business.
Before you say it I am NOT defending crime against business that is wrong too but if choices are to be made as to severity of sentence I know which way I lean.
The authorities don't seem to care about the effect on individuals unless those individuals fit particular templates.
You'd probably say she 'only' had £1,000 taken so the perpetrator didn't deserve prison.
The aftermath of that crime, committed by someone she trusted, killed her though.
If there was ever any doubt as to who the laws are made to protect:
Section 20 assault (the less of the two types of GBH) includes unlawful wounding and serious bodily harm has a maximum sentence of 5 years.
Section 107 copyright infringement has a maximum sentence of 10 years.
In the US it is more extreme, the average handed down jail term for breaking into somebodies house, assaulting them and stealing is less than the recommended jail term for copying a DVD 10 times and giving them out to your mates.
Going to Natwest tomorrow, awaiting Clydesdale bank to investigate - will be weeks before a decision is made.
@iamdan I take it that your dad doesn't normally make £20k trasnfers. Be polite with NW, but also be quite tough with them on why such an unusual transaction was allowed to go through. They will likely argue that your dad enabled the fraudsters by giving them the information/details they needed (sorry, I know that sounds harsh), but they still should have spotted a transfer like that. Clydesdale have a lot to answer for as well, but that ,at take time and they may use the data protection act to avoid giving you too much information.
See how that goes and maybe also try someone like the Sunday Times finance team. They look into things like this and can often get more out of the banks involved than you might be able to. Email Jill Insley at questionofmoney@sunday-times.co.uk
They ran a piece on Sunday about two high street banks who have been ordered by the regulator to check “hundreds of thousands”of accounts as their account opening procedures weren’t rigorous enough.
Here’s the story mate...as much about insider (bank employee) fraud as the really poor account opening procedures!!! Good luck tomorrow...
Two leading banks have been ordered to check hundreds of thousands of accounts that may belong to fraudsters, Money understands.
The high street banks, which have not been named, have been told to examine whether their account opening procedures fall short of tough anti-fraud checks introduced in recent years, a senior source at the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) revealed. The City watchdog suspects the accounts were opened with fake ID.
Banks have also been told to report to the FCA all cases of potential “conduct rule breaches”, where employees may be involved in crime. For example, rogue staff may pass customer details to accomplices. One bank said it submitted a “low single-digit” number of reports about potential staff fraud to the FCA every month.
Crime victims are often astonished by the amount of detail the conmen know about their accounts. This has fuelled suspicion they may be getting insider help.
This week, MPs on the Treasury committee will question the regulator and banks on their efforts to combat economic crime and protect data security. Fraud losses hit a record £500m in the first half of this year.
Police have accused banks of failing to report employee fraud. Detective chief superintendent Peter O’Doherty at City of London police said: “We recommend banks always report cases of insider fraud to us.”
In the first half of this year there were 39 arrests and interviews under caution involving bank staff and “money mules” — individuals who let fraudsters use their accounts to receive stolen funds. These resulted in the Dedicated Card and Payment Crime Unit, a specialist police team working with the banks, winning 10 convictions.
The FCA would not comment on the investigations. However, Jonathan Davidson, its director of supervision, said: “We have dedicated significant resources to ensuring firms are not taking on financial crime perpetrators as customers, and have effective screening of the millions of transactions that pass through the system.”
This type of behaviour is about as low as it gets. I really hope your Dad gets his money back and the scammers caught.
The only advice I can offer to anybody is to handle ANY telephone call you receive in the following way
1) Ask the caller to confirm which company they are calling from, even talk over them if you have to. Don't be afraid to ask them to repeat themselves.
2) If they are calling from a company you do business with (BT, Sky, mobile phone companies etc) ask them what the issue is and say you will call them back, hang up and actually do call the company back even if it does mean putting yourself out a bit in doing so, it's far better in the long run.
3) If they are calling from a company you don't deal with, ask them to not call again, to remove you from their database and just hang up.
Politeness and manners sadly also have to go out of the window.
My dad has in the last year been attacked twice by these scammers, once by a distraction gang in Barclays in Gravesend where one guy distracted him and the other took his card from the machine and noted his pin number. They emptied his account of several hundred pound, fortunately he got his money back and the CCT evidence given to the poloice. Note: - this was inside the bank not on the street.
Secondly he was contacted over the phone saying his card was about to run out and rather than post it, they would send a courier around to pick up his old card and replenish with a new one.. Luckily my brother just happended to have popped in when this conversation was going on. They went along with it and set up a filming device, unfortunatly the courier turned up on a motorbike and they couldnt get a full description but noted the number plate on the bike, of course this was a stolen motor bike.
Really sorry to hear about your Dad. I often get calls on my landline pretending to be from BT, I tell them to give me my account number then, they usually ring off. If they don't, I do!
The issue is, he gave the scammers remote access, in the background they set up a payee and bang the whole lot disappeared before his eyes.
I guess the task would be huge for banks but one question is... Why isnt there an added security setup where the Bank calls the customer just to check and make sure they're not being scammed OR that they intended to send such a large sum when in fact have accidentally added too many zero's?
Of course if its a Payment to an existing payee that has been sent money before then fair enough but surely... New Payee / Large Sum has to trigger a warning system at the bank that has to be investigated before the sum gets sent on
That quick (genuine) phone call would surely save a lot of hassle thats having to go on now?
A guy complaining about how he got scammed after the scammers saw him ranting on twitter about how long it was taking a high street bank to set up his business bank account. They emailed him, masquerading as the bank:
The issue is, he gave the scammers remote access, in the background they set up a payee and bang the whole lot disappeared before his eyes.
I guess the task would be huge for banks but one question is... Why isnt there an added security setup where the Bank calls the customer just to check and make sure they're not being scammed OR that they intended to send such a large sum when in fact have accidentally added too many zero's?
Of course if its a Payment to an existing payee that has been sent money before then fair enough but surely... New Payee / Large Sum has to trigger a warning system at the bank that has to be investigated before the sum gets sent on
That quick (genuine) phone call would surely save a lot of hassle thats having to go on now?
M&S Bank once sent me a snail mail warning of suspected misuse of my credit card. I triggered it before Christmas by placing orders for two groceries deliveries from the same supermarket, necessitating 2 checkouts in half an hour, for about £50 each. A tiny bit over-sensitive and slow on their part, imo.
The issue is, he gave the scammers remote access, in the background they set up a payee and bang the whole lot disappeared before his eyes.
I guess the task would be huge for banks but one question is... Why isnt there an added security setup where the Bank calls the customer just to check and make sure they're not being scammed OR that they intended to send such a large sum when in fact have accidentally added too many zero's?
Of course if its a Payment to an existing payee that has been sent money before then fair enough but surely... New Payee / Large Sum has to trigger a warning system at the bank that has to be investigated before the sum gets sent on
That quick (genuine) phone call would surely save a lot of hassle thats having to go on now?
They certainly used to, I had a call questioning a large transaction I made once, and I remember my Dad getting a call from the bank asking if he'd just taken 900 rand out of a cash point in South Africa (he was in his kitchen in Kent at the time). Maybe the sheer volume these days prevents them chasing up a significant percentage over the phone?
Comments
We set the objective of getting the scammer to send us a picture of himself with a fish on his head. And he did!
419eater.com is great for a laugh.
Sorry to hear someone has been scammed bang out of order
Can see why some get sucked in though. They are the lowest of the low.
Hopefully Natwest will look kindly on what's happened and whether they failed in any duty of care to your dad. Similarly Clydesdale have some questions to answer in terms of KYC and spotting unusual transactions.
I'd reiterate the advice given to be on the lookout for further scam approaches in the future. Your dad will now be on a "sucker list", which is an ugly word they use to describe individuals who have shown a willingness to engage with scam attempts.
This is very valuable info to scammers and likely to lead to further attempts so you might want to invest in a call blocking device also which might be of some help.
I mean why go down for a ten stretch for armed robbery when you'll be unlucky to even get a custodial sentence for fraud. Sorry that your Dad has been caught up in this @iamdan fingers crossed for some positive news.
But when there are telesales operations targetting UK victims from short term, rented accomodation in Spain that is utilising multiple bank accounts bouncing around the globe to process the money it's never going to be an attractive proposition for the police to investigate. Especially when there's a junkie recently released from prison they know is doing low level burglaries who drinks in a certain pub they can pick up whenever they want and clear up multiple offences at the same time.
Doesn't make it right in any way, and the victims are not seeing justice but when you're in an either/or situation the authorities are by necessity going to factor in the likelihood of success into the equation as to whether to pursue fraud cases.
Sentences for crimes against individuals are generally less than crimes against business yet the emotional and traumatic effect of the crime is far greater for an individual than for an impersonal business.
Before you say it I am NOT defending crime against business that is wrong too but if choices are to be made as to severity of sentence I know which way I lean.
The authorities don't seem to care about the effect on individuals unless those individuals fit particular templates.
You'd probably say she 'only' had £1,000 taken so the perpetrator didn't deserve prison.
The aftermath of that crime, committed by someone she trusted, killed her though.
But hey I'm twisted for caring......
EDIT: Forgot the link
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613188/Carer-caught-stealing-pensioner-died-stress-avoid-jail.html
You'll probably say it never happened because it's in the Daily Mail but hey ho!
Section 20 assault (the less of the two types of GBH) includes unlawful wounding and serious bodily harm has a maximum sentence of 5 years.
Section 107 copyright infringement has a maximum sentence of 10 years.
In the US it is more extreme, the average handed down jail term for breaking into somebodies house, assaulting them and stealing is less than the recommended jail term for copying a DVD 10 times and giving them out to your mates.
See how that goes and maybe also try someone like the Sunday Times finance team. They look into things like this and can often get more out of the banks involved than you might be able to. Email Jill Insley at questionofmoney@sunday-times.co.uk
They ran a piece on Sunday about two high street banks who have been ordered by the regulator to check “hundreds of thousands”of accounts as their account opening procedures weren’t rigorous enough.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/past-six-days/2018-11-25/money/watchdog-orders-two-banks-to-look-into-fraudsters-accounts-bmf8f9ps8
Not sure if you’ll get past the paywall on this. I’ll copy it if interested.
Two leading banks have been ordered to check hundreds of thousands of accounts that may belong to fraudsters, Money understands.
The high street banks, which have not been named, have been told to examine whether their account opening procedures fall short of tough anti-fraud checks introduced in recent years, a senior source at the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) revealed. The City watchdog suspects the accounts were opened with fake ID.
Banks have also been told to report to the FCA all cases of potential “conduct rule breaches”, where employees may be involved in crime. For example, rogue staff may pass customer details to accomplices. One bank said it submitted a “low single-digit” number of reports about potential staff fraud to the FCA every month.
Crime victims are often astonished by the amount of detail the conmen know about their accounts. This has fuelled suspicion they may be getting insider help.
This week, MPs on the Treasury committee will question the regulator and banks on their efforts to combat economic crime and protect data security. Fraud losses hit a record £500m in the first half of this year.
Police have accused banks of failing to report employee fraud. Detective chief superintendent Peter O’Doherty at City of London police said: “We recommend banks always report cases of insider fraud to us.”
In the first half of this year there were 39 arrests and interviews under caution involving bank staff and “money mules” — individuals who let fraudsters use their accounts to receive stolen funds. These resulted in the Dedicated Card and Payment Crime Unit, a specialist police team working with the banks, winning 10 convictions.
The FCA would not comment on the investigations. However, Jonathan Davidson, its director of supervision, said: “We have dedicated significant resources to ensuring firms are not taking on financial crime perpetrators as customers, and have effective screening of the millions of transactions that pass through the system.”
The only advice I can offer to anybody is to handle ANY telephone call you receive in the following way
1) Ask the caller to confirm which company they are calling from, even talk over them if you have to. Don't be afraid to ask them to repeat themselves.
2) If they are calling from a company you do business with (BT, Sky, mobile phone companies etc) ask them what the issue is and say you will call them back, hang up and actually do call the company back even if it does mean putting yourself out a bit in doing so, it's far better in the long run.
3) If they are calling from a company you don't deal with, ask them to not call again, to remove you from their database and just hang up.
Politeness and manners sadly also have to go out of the window.
Secondly he was contacted over the phone saying his card was about to run out and rather than post it, they would send a courier around to pick up his old card and replenish with a new one.. Luckily my brother just happended to have popped in when this conversation was going on. They went along with it and set up a filming device, unfortunatly the courier turned up on a motorbike and they couldnt get a full description but noted the number plate on the bike, of course this was a stolen motor bike.
Hanging would be too kind for these barstards.
Of course if its a Payment to an existing payee that has been sent money before then fair enough but surely... New Payee / Large Sum has to trigger a warning system at the bank that has to be investigated before the sum gets sent on
That quick (genuine) phone call would surely save a lot of hassle thats having to go on now?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46309561
I think he sounds like a complete divot, but divots deserve sympathy, too.