Discussion
During lockdown an elderley relative of mine had his wife's nephew (previous marriage) staying with them.
During the stay he intercepted the mail and setup online banking for my relative's account without him knowing.
Once he had access to the account he transferred in excess of £80k to his own account and spent it.
He was convicted this week and got 5 years in prison.
The Police have said his money is gone.
Does this sound right? surely the bank have to recompense him in some way for fraud.
During the stay he intercepted the mail and setup online banking for my relative's account without him knowing.
Once he had access to the account he transferred in excess of £80k to his own account and spent it.
He was convicted this week and got 5 years in prison.
The Police have said his money is gone.
Does this sound right? surely the bank have to recompense him in some way for fraud.
JuanCarlosFandango said:
Horrible story.
I doubt the bank would be liable, it was the lodger who intercepted his post and stole the money. They could argue the relative was careless.
Just looking at Citizens Advice:-I doubt the bank would be liable, it was the lodger who intercepted his post and stole the money. They could argue the relative was careless.
"Your bank should refund any money stolen from you as a result of fraud and identity theft."
His mail was intercepted when he wasn't in, not sure if that's careless?
Zoon said:
Just looking at Citizens Advice:-
"Your bank should refund any money stolen from you as a result of fraud and identity theft."
His mail was intercepted when he wasn't in, not sure if that's careless?
I imagine the bank will argue it was. Definitely worth pursuing though. It sounds like things have been tightened up in the last few years since a relative of mine was scammed."Your bank should refund any money stolen from you as a result of fraud and identity theft."
His mail was intercepted when he wasn't in, not sure if that's careless?
JuanCarlosFandango said:
I imagine the bank will argue it was. Definitely worth pursuing though. It sounds like things have been tightened up in the last few years since a relative of mine was scammed.
I've told him to make an appointment with the bank, now that the guy has been sentenced for fraud.Often wondered about this. How much do the police actually do in these circumstances, other than review the evidence and make the arrest, and how many criminals manage to leave prison and still benefit from the proceeds of their crime?
Do they do a proper investigation of the spending, or do they just see the money being "spent" and leave it at that?
How do you spend £80k and have absolutely nothing to show for it (yes you could say holidays, but it seems a bit of an odd thing to do, effectively rob someone and only be able to use the proceeds for your annual holiday, plus it would take years). You'd imagine there are at least some tangible goods or cash that can be identified.
If not, does the criminal have any assets whatsoever (bank account, house, car, pension etc) as IMO any of these should be seized and sold to repay the debt.
Seems wrong that the money can be "gone" just because it was spent.
Do they do a proper investigation of the spending, or do they just see the money being "spent" and leave it at that?
How do you spend £80k and have absolutely nothing to show for it (yes you could say holidays, but it seems a bit of an odd thing to do, effectively rob someone and only be able to use the proceeds for your annual holiday, plus it would take years). You'd imagine there are at least some tangible goods or cash that can be identified.
If not, does the criminal have any assets whatsoever (bank account, house, car, pension etc) as IMO any of these should be seized and sold to repay the debt.
Seems wrong that the money can be "gone" just because it was spent.
Zoon said:
Does this sound right? surely the bank have to recompense him in some way for fraud.
Sorry for your relative's loss. Irrespective of the legal situation, I really don't understand this line of thought. If the bank have done nothing wrong or negligent, why should a customer's loss be transferred to them? Is it some sort of Robin Hood mentality that leads people to think "they can afford it and I can't, so they should pay?"If they have a way to recover the money - reversing the transaction - then absolutely they should pursue it. If the money is spent then what can the bank do?
The Ferret said:
Often wondered about this. How much do the police actually do in these circumstances, other than review the evidence and make the arrest, and how many criminals manage to leave prison and still benefit from the proceeds of their crime?
Do they do a proper investigation of the spending, or do they just see the money being "spent" and leave it at that?
How do you spend £80k and have absolutely nothing to show for it (yes you could say holidays, but it seems a bit of an odd thing to do, effectively rob someone and only be able to use the proceeds for your annual holiday, plus it would take years). You'd imagine there are at least some tangible goods or cash that can be identified.
If not, does the criminal have any assets whatsoever (bank account, house, car, pension etc) as IMO any of these should be seized and sold to repay the debt.
Seems wrong that the money can be "gone" just because it was spent.
He spent the money on clothing, trainers, online gambling and transferred quite a bit to friends accounts.Do they do a proper investigation of the spending, or do they just see the money being "spent" and leave it at that?
How do you spend £80k and have absolutely nothing to show for it (yes you could say holidays, but it seems a bit of an odd thing to do, effectively rob someone and only be able to use the proceeds for your annual holiday, plus it would take years). You'd imagine there are at least some tangible goods or cash that can be identified.
If not, does the criminal have any assets whatsoever (bank account, house, car, pension etc) as IMO any of these should be seized and sold to repay the debt.
Seems wrong that the money can be "gone" just because it was spent.
Conveniently he has no assets to speak of, and is classed as homeless.
He also spent a fair bit on going out drinking once restrictions were lifted.
My relative is very old school and didn't do online banking, as long as bills were paid etc would only get a mini statement every once in a while.
I can't help feeling it's partially his fault for not checking regularly, but I do feel sorry for him having his life savings nicked in such a way.
Zoon said:
I've told him to make an appointment with the bank, now that the guy has been sentenced for fraud.
I'd take advice before this and go in armed. In our case the bank were somewhat slippery about these things, essentially trying to get out of paying by getting my relative to admit liability. spikyone said:
Zoon said:
Does this sound right? surely the bank have to recompense him in some way for fraud.
Sorry for your relative's loss. Irrespective of the legal situation, I really don't understand this line of thought. If the bank have done nothing wrong or negligent, why should a customer's loss be transferred to them? Is it some sort of Robin Hood mentality that leads people to think "they can afford it and I can't, so they should pay?"If they have a way to recover the money - reversing the transaction - then absolutely they should pursue it. If the money is spent then what can the bank do?
I would say that is the bank demonstrably not having enough safeguards and security checks in place.
The Ferret said:
Often wondered about this. How much do the police actually do in these circumstances, other than review the evidence and make the arrest, and how many criminals manage to leave prison and still benefit from the proceeds of their crime?
Do they do a proper investigation of the spending, or do they just see the money being "spent" and leave it at that?
How do you spend £80k and have absolutely nothing to show for it (yes you could say holidays, but it seems a bit of an odd thing to do, effectively rob someone and only be able to use the proceeds for your annual holiday, plus it would take years). You'd imagine there are at least some tangible goods or cash that can be identified.
If not, does the criminal have any assets whatsoever (bank account, house, car, pension etc) as IMO any of these should be seized and sold to repay the debt.
Seems wrong that the money can be "gone" just because it was spent.
The Police have financial investigators and I would think they looked into his assets but if he has none as seems to be the case then there's not a lot that can be done in terms of confiscation. Do they do a proper investigation of the spending, or do they just see the money being "spent" and leave it at that?
How do you spend £80k and have absolutely nothing to show for it (yes you could say holidays, but it seems a bit of an odd thing to do, effectively rob someone and only be able to use the proceeds for your annual holiday, plus it would take years). You'd imagine there are at least some tangible goods or cash that can be identified.
If not, does the criminal have any assets whatsoever (bank account, house, car, pension etc) as IMO any of these should be seized and sold to repay the debt.
Seems wrong that the money can be "gone" just because it was spent.
They can apply for a financial order under Proceeds Of Crime (POCA) on the off chance the suspect comes into money in the future but it's not overly helpful; to the OP's family, if the money is gone then it's gone.
spikyone said:
Zoon said:
Does this sound right? surely the bank have to recompense him in some way for fraud.
Sorry for your relative's loss. Irrespective of the legal situation, I really don't understand this line of thought. If the bank have done nothing wrong or negligent, why should a customer's loss be transferred to them? Is it some sort of Robin Hood mentality that leads people to think "they can afford it and I can't, so they should pay?"If they have a way to recover the money - reversing the transaction - then absolutely they should pursue it. If the money is spent then what can the bank do?
If they don't, why shouldn't they be liable? Its their business to safeguard their customers' cash and ensure their business isn't used for criminal transactions.
youngsyr said:
The bank should have sufficient systems in place to prevent fraud, especially to the tune of £80k.
A sudden transaction of £80K would usually set bells ringing; if so perhaps the thief, pretending to be the owner of the money, just lied to them. Voice recognition is the only obvious barrier to that I can think of.Zoon said:
During lockdown an elderley relative of mine had his wife's nephew (previous marriage) staying with them.
During the stay he intercepted the mail and setup online banking for my relative's account without him knowing.
Once he had access to the account he transferred in excess of £80k to his own account and spent it.
He was convicted this week and got 5 years in prison.
The Police have said his money is gone.
Does this sound right? surely the bank have to recompense him in some way for fraud.
It is your family's fault for having dishonest relations. During the stay he intercepted the mail and setup online banking for my relative's account without him knowing.
Once he had access to the account he transferred in excess of £80k to his own account and spent it.
He was convicted this week and got 5 years in prison.
The Police have said his money is gone.
Does this sound right? surely the bank have to recompense him in some way for fraud.
The wife's nephew stole the money, not the bank.
He shouldn't have let a dishonest family member into the house. - let alone stay with him.
Zoon said:
I've told him to make an appointment with the bank, now that the guy has been sentenced for fraud.
To be honest, if there's £80,000 in the mix he should be talking to a solicitor, not the bank. It could be disastrous to turn up and "admit" stuff at the bank regarding this wayward relative and his behaviour.Get a solicitor on it. Two reasons,
1. Proper advice about when a bank is and isn't liable,
2. It'll carry much more weight with the bank than just a chat with the customer.
said:
How would they have stopped this, short of sending someone to stay in the house to see who opens the post?
I would have thought the irregular transactions would set an alarm bell ringing. In the case of my relative, a retired teacher who had a chunk of cash from downsizing which sat in her bank for 5 years or so. Her routine transactions were shopping, bills and the occasional holiday. Lived in North east England, then suddenly sent £10,000s of pounds to a newly opened account in Swansea, which wad promptly sent overseas where it apparently disappeared. They can call quickly enough to sell us something, they're "by your side" when they want to be and they sharp to notice if you go overdrawn. I'm pretty sure they could manage a phone call before releasing such large amounts of money to make sure the person knows what they're doing and who they're sending it to.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff