Times: Fraud victims left in the lurch by banks

NO! Cloning of cards!

Same here!

Yes, this is the type of thing I am talking about.

But this isnt signature fraud, it is straightforward card cloning.

Hmm, I know I introduced the debate on the meaning of the word clone, but I stand by my 'card cloning' becuase the signtaure, whilst it is on the card, wsnt when it was made and it is a separate entity to the card itself.

Please don't quote selectively. Both quotes are "just" opinions if you want to be like that.

What I /actually/ wrote was "Not at all. It may or may not be justified - I'm just pointing out that a possibility is that (a) fraud overall will be reduced and (b) the burden of future fraud will tend to fall on the customer not the bank."

Pointing out a joint possibility.

/As it happens/ I take a somewhat cynical view of attitudes from organizations like banks, borne out to some extent by experience, which leads me to expect the worst.

I'm glad someone's on my side :-)

But this devolves every time into a "'tis; 't ain't" argument, currently unresolvable.

The one side reckon the banks are out to maximize their profits; the other, that the banks will do the honourable thing on every occasion.

IMHO /only/ time will tell; meanwhile I and others prefer not to be forced into taking what we perceive to be an unfair risk.

Tim wrote: ...

Here we go again.....

If there's a piece of knowledge of which only you are (initially) the custodian, and if someone else subsequently conclusively demonstrates possession of that knowledge, you are ipso facto a prime candidate for the suspicion that you divulged it.

"Mike Scott" wrote

I presume that you count yourself in this "camp"?

If banks really were to try to maximise their profits in this respect, then they would try to ensure that these issues are resolved according to their own Banking Code, and the law, as swiftly as possible each time. If upper management has to become involved for each case, then the costs for dealing with the case will escalate and thus impact negatively on profits.

"Mike Scott" wrote

Are you considering me in this camp?

If so, you are wrong. I just believe that the

**end result** will usually be the "correct" one, not that it will always happen *immediately*, which doing "the honourable thing on every occasion" suggests to me.

"Mike Scott" wrote

The PIN isn't like that - it is *also* known by the bank as well, and also anyone who has illegally "tapped-in" to a sales terminal...

"Mike Scott" wrote

... and so are some employees of the bank!

But being a "prime candidate" does not constitute *proof* that you did it.

For instance, there are often several "prime candidates" for a murder, most of which are innocent. Are you proposing that they should *all* be prosecuted for the murder?

At 15:02:44 on 21/01/2006, john boyle delighted uk.finance by announcing:

Interesting. Mine expires next month and I got my PIN number this morning; replacement card following shortly.

Some pub this is. Not only is there no smoking, but no drinking either! Except secretly in our little corners.

You must be talking about the credit card. Mine (which is also chipless) is valid 11/04 "thru" [aargh] 10/07. But I meant the real thing, the charge card, which doesn't have a from-date; it's valid "thru" 02/08 and has the chip.

Nonsense. The signature is not a separate entity but is inseparable from the card, because you need it in order to use the card. I'm talking about non-PIN cards, of course.

You either use a real stolen card, or a cloned card.

In the former case you either use a card which has already been signed by its rightful holder, in which case you need to practice, and this (subcase 1a) is then straightforward "signature fraud", or you use a card you've managed to intercept in the post with its strip still blank, and then you can use an easy signature. Using such a card (subcase 1b) involves no cloning, and is still broadly "signature fraud", but of a different kind. In 1a you're trying to fake (in the sense of imitate) the holder's sig, in 1b you're not imitating at all, but still presenting a signature (two in fact) which is (are) just bogus. Bogus counts a fake too.

With the cloned card we have similar subcases 2a and 2b, depending on whether the "blank" for the cloning was obtained by stealing some other card which has already been signed (and you need to practice) or came conveniently with a blank strip. Again, in both subcases you need to present a signature which is fake, with the added twist that in 2a the sig you're trying to imitate is itself bogus. There is still signature fraud involved.

I'm seriously considering going back to paying by cheque at Tesco's. I take it I won't be required to supply the PIN for my combined cheque/atm/switch card.

If the right end result involves excessive hassle to the customer, who is likely to be less well placed to deal with it than the banks, or takes too long, it's no good.

"Immediately" would be ideal, but is perhaps an unrealistic expectation. Where lies the acceptable middle ground? And would it not be better for the customer to revert to cash for Tesco's?

Isn't the banking code is one of those "gentlemen's agreements" which carries no weight in a court of law? It isn't actually enshrined in the Ts&Cs, is it?

The difference between murder and this bank/customer thing is that the bank is not primarily interested in securing a fraud conviction. The case will be in civil court, and the plaintiff will be the customer, not the bank. The plaintiff will have to prove on the balance of probabilities that the bank gave the dosh away to an unknown third party without the customer's authorisation.

That is, the bank doesn't have to prove anything, but the PIN possession argument is a reasonably convincing BOP refutation of the customer's claim.

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Which is why I recommend, at the first sign of any "hassle", firing off a letter to the "top man".

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

What's wrong with Tesco's?

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Indeed...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

It doesn't need to - if you get no joy from the "top man" then go to the Financial Ombudsman (not court). He's a perfect "gentleman"...

He will take into account all the bank's literature on the issue in question, which will include the Banking Code - which the customer has been led to believe that they can rely on....

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

No, it won't get that far - it'll be considered by the Financial Ombudsman, whose decision is *binding* on the bank.

But even if it *did* get to court :-

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Only for a "debit card" transaction - not for a "credit card".

With a credit card, the customer simply does not pay when the statement arrives (or rather, pays for all *valid* transactions and not the disputed ones). Then the bank would be the plaintiff in any court action, not the customer...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

I.e., "the bank will have to prove..."!!

and in the meantime the individual would be unable to obtain credit anywhere due to the adverse credit information on his file?

Jim.

What "adverse credit information"?

The CC co cannot go giving false info will-nilly to the credit reference agencies. And if they did, as a temporary measure you can place a NOC on the files, which will (of course) state only the *facts*...