Chip and pin fraud.

"john boyle" wrote

No, not here - I was simply questioning your comment that the customer couldn't go to FOS.

"john boyle" wrote

Ah, I've been talking about a made-up ("cloned") card with a shoulder-surfed or guessed PIN.

If the PIN has been deliberately revealed by the account holder to the thief, then I'd consider that as being involved with the theft.

Reply to
Tim
Loading thread data ...

"john boyle" wrote

No, not really. The *bank* performed the transaction, at the *request* of the thief. This was without the account holder's authority, and so invalid and should be reversed by the bank.

Reply to
Tim

Fergus O'Rourke wrote: ...

The case a year or two back with Diners Card Intl, in SA IIRC, saw that out. The banks provided at least some details of their systems to a couple of somewhat unwilling Cambridge experts, not the defense. Said experts are not allowed to make public comment in case it compromises the bank's security - which to me says a lot about the how bad the security actually is. (I think that's a fair summary, from memory)

Oh, the bank won, possibly with good reason in this case.

Reply to
Mike Scott

Whether its invalid depends upon whether there is a thief. The default position is that there isnt one, otherwise you could withdraw as much money from the bank as you wanted. Unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt there is a thief, you lose.

Reply to
Tumbleweed

Tumbleweed posted

Your evidence for these assertions being ... ?

Reply to
PeteM

"Tumbleweed" wrote

Just because there have been a few travesties of justice, doesn't mean that those travesties should be continued for all future cases!

Reply to
Tim

"Tumbleweed" wrote

Even John Boyle accepts that in this scenario there *is* a "thief"!

"Tumbleweed" wrote

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here. Obviously, you can't withdraw more than the combined balance plus whatever overdraft the bank will allow. But apart from that, why would there be any problem with you withdrawing as much as you like? [When you ask the bank for the withdrawal, you are authorising the deduction from the account balance.]

"Tumbleweed" wrote

It's a civil case, between you & the bank, isn't it? - Which is decided on a 'balance of probabilities', not 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

Anyway, when person 'A' passes property, owned & in the possession of person 'A', to person 'B' -- how is person 'C' even meant to know anything about the transaction, let alone prove anything about it? And why should they? They weren't there, didn't see it, and didn't authorise it! But - person 'A' *did*.

'A' = Bank 'B' = Thief 'C' = account holder 'property' = cash

Reply to
Tim

In message , Mike Scott writes

No, that is what happens when a bank is robbed. Its the banks cash that is robbed. If dosh is withdrawn from an account, then it is the account holder who loses out.

Reply to
john boyle

In message , Tim writes

I didnt say that, I said it wouldnt get that far, meaning it would be resolved before that stage. The point at question here is whether it was the bank or the client who was the victim..

By 'reveal' I include shoulder surfed or guessed.

Reply to
john boyle

In message , Tim writes

Not so. All I can say further is that I have considerable experience of this, admittedly in years gone by.

What I can describe though is a case again in which I was directly involved about 18 months ago. In this case it was an insurance company, not a bank, but the difference is not material. A fraudulent financial adviser nicked £70k from a client by a clever deception on the life office who paid out to the wrong person.. The charges were clear, the victim was the investor NOT the life office. The offence, which was discovered and investigated by myself (I was not the victim by the way) was presented to the police as a series of facts without any assumptions. The police (bless their cotton socks) and the CPS devised the charges, I had no input into that. The FSA were also involved and their activities revealed further wrong doings by the IFA and they were instrumental in the bringing of the charges as well. In each case the 'victims' in the charges were the investors.

I am pleased to say that the victims all got their dosh back from the IFA. I am not prepared to reveal in the public domain how the fraud was committed, suffice to say this story is a valid comparison with a third party fraudulently withdrawing from a bank account and you will have to trust me on that.

The IFA pleaded not guilty until the day of the trial when he changed plea before the trial commenced on advice (I understand) from his barrister, so the defence must have been satisfied with the technical correctness of the charges.

Im pleased to say he got 18 months.

Reply to
john boyle

I was going to say 'reality', but lets take it slowly for you.

The default position is, for each withdrawal made against your account, there is no thief, since if the bank thought a thief was involved, even they wouldn't allow the withdrawal to go ahead. Thus, the money comes out of your account every time.

Agreed?

Then, you content that a thief has made a withdrawal. Note that you have to contend this, if you don't, the bank will be unaware anything has happened.

Agreed?

Now the bank ask for proof of the thief/fact it wasnt you (e.g evidence). Note that if they didn't, they would, within a short period of time, be subject to enough spurious claims to empty their vaults within a very short period.

Agreed? (If you don't, you must have a touching faith in human nature)..and I draw your attention to the numerous cases where ordinary members of the public continued to draw money out of faulty ATMs believing it wouldnt be noticed, as evidence of what would happen. Thats evidence for the second statement. Furthermore, you wouldn't bank with any bank that simply relied on customers word in these circumstances, because they would go bust, taking your money with them. (and even if you would, they'd be bust, so you couldn't , a nice Catch 22 :-)

Now, the bank act as judge of whether your evidence is strong enough. Agreed? (If it was up to you to say whether it was strong enough, somehow I suspect it always would be and we'd be back to the empty vault scenario.) Thats evidence for the first statement.

If the bank don't agree there is reasonable evidence, you either lose, or have to go to FOS or law. If you go to FOS/ law and they don't believe there is reasonable evidence, you lose. Agreed?

Reply to
Tumbleweed

And where did I state that? Please don't confuse statements about what actually happens, with what 'should' happen.

Reply to
Tumbleweed

Oddly enough, that hasn't happened.

The banks code of practice says otherwise.

No it isn't.

There is a difference between an opportunistic situation like that, and deliberately setting out to defraud.

But they haven't gone bust.

But based on the false premise that evidence is required.

It is actually the other way around. If you tell the bank that your card is lost or stolen, then it is up to *them* to show you were negligent (or are attempting to defraud them).

You should read the Banking code.

No.

Reply to
Alex Heney

I meant that the default position, for every transaction that occurs against your account, is that its performed by you or an agent of yours, rather than a thief. This is then the starting point for the bank, "prove it wasnt a thief" ; e.g. "since all the other transactions were executed by you, why should we believe you when you say this one wasnt. Maybe you forgot or are lying or a relative took it without your knowledge or you disclosed the PIN" (these are the four standard excuses/reasons they use).

And as per my previous message, please dont confuse statements about what actually happens, with what 'should' happen. This is what actually happens. If it wasn't we wouldnt be having an argument, and incidentally no banks would have any money left in them either.

well, initally its decided by the bank on whatever basis they choose to use. Which to them is probably much stricter than ,'reasonable doubt', but anyway lets not get hung up on a phrase, thats way too picky.

If you disagree with their refusal to believe you and then go to arbitration or law, then again its decided on some basis or other, in which the bank seems to have the upper hand, judging by reports we see. And as per my previous message, please dont confuse statements about what actually happens, with what 'should' happen. This is what actually happens.

I think you are getting confused by people saying 'X happens', and thinking they mean 'X *should* happen'. And you are meaning to say 'X *should* happen' but omitting the 'should' so it looks like you are saying 'this is what happens', for example a thief takes the money so it should immediately be refunded. Without explaining how we know its a thief and not a forgetful or fraudulent customer.

Perhaps you could explain how it would work on your planet. Are you saying that for each and every case where someone says to a bank "I didnt make that withdrawal" the bank should immediately refund them the money, no questions asked?

Reply to
Tumbleweed

Tumbleweed wrote: ...

No. If someone forges my signature on a cheque, presents it to the bank and is paid, it's the bank's loss, not mine. Isn't this analogous to an ATM withdrawal by a criminal? If not, how is it different?

Reply to
Mike Scott

This is the heart of the matter and why some of those posting here have chip and signature cards not C&P, and why the article re the little old lady being accused of being a thief was brought up. Its easy to show its not your signature (usually). Its very difficult to show it wasnt you that typed those digits in, or disclosed them to a third party. Thats the difference. Plus the banks attitude that you are at fault.

Reply to
Tumbleweed

In message , Mike Scott writes

A criminal case would show you as the victim, not the bank.

Reply to
john boyle

Thats because they ask for evidence it wasnt you.

How touching. Refer back to the way that Claire Tomalin was treated.

formatting link
& tell me how this fits with "The banks code of practice says otherwise".

I think you'll find there is a dfference to 'the banks code of practice' and 'the way banks actually behave on this planet'.

thats because they want evidence. Try walking into your bank, saying there was a cash withdrawal at the ATM outside this bank yesterday, it wasnt me, give me my money back immediately. Do you think they will (straight away, no further questions asked?).

If you do, refer back to the way that Claire Tomalin was treated.

LOL. refer back to the way that Claire Tomalin was treated.

LOL. refer back to the way that Claire Tomalin was treated.

LOL. refer back to the way that Claire Tomalin was treated.

Reply to
Tumbleweed

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.