£310,000 "Romance Scam"
Discussion
What do people make of this?
‘Internet ‘husband’ used romantic songs to con me out of £310,000’
I absolutely feel for the poor woman involved but I've read it several times and I can't for the life of me work out how or why the bank have decided to absorb the cost?
‘Internet ‘husband’ used romantic songs to con me out of £310,000’
I absolutely feel for the poor woman involved but I've read it several times and I can't for the life of me work out how or why the bank have decided to absorb the cost?
When people complain that the banks are making too much profit and then I see that they decide to make the customer whole in cases like this, I can only agree.
Absolutely bonkers. I really don‘t see what the banks can do to protect people further. How many times do we see the opposite side of this where customers complain that the bank wants to know their inside leg measurements to approve transfers of paltry sums. They really can‘t win.
Disclaimer: I work for a bank outside the UK, but like to think I can be even handed
Absolutely bonkers. I really don‘t see what the banks can do to protect people further. How many times do we see the opposite side of this where customers complain that the bank wants to know their inside leg measurements to approve transfers of paltry sums. They really can‘t win.
Disclaimer: I work for a bank outside the UK, but like to think I can be even handed
b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: ...and I can't for the life of me work out how or why the bank have decided to absorb the cost?
The PSR published a report this week which highlights the scale of the problem and the ridiculously high percentage of APP fraud that banks reimburse. It's a problem that has been around for years and we have introduced initiatives like Confirmation of Payee to try and counter it, but it's still one of the biggest challenges in the payments industry today.
In theory, customers won't be reimbursed if they've been negligent...but that barrier is currently set far too high in my view. Seems that customers can take some utterly inane actions and yet still receive compensation - even if they have gone directly against the bank's guidance and / or lied about the purpose of the payment. We need to differentiate between genuinely vulnerable people being exploited vs. idiots vs. fraudsters.
It's going to get worse with the new PSR requirements coming in that mean even more people will receive refunds.
It's absolutely ripe for exploitation by fraudsters. Fraudster 1 opens account and make a payment to Fraudster 2 (likely using mule account). Fraudster 1 claims they were tricked and bank refunds their money within 5 days. Fraudster 2 has already moved the money / converted it to crypto and it's now unrecoverable. Fraudster 1 and 2 split the profits 50/50.
Oh, and whilst it's technically the banks who absorb the cost, it will inevitably get passed on to customers one way or another. Oh, we've lost another £150m to APP fraud? Let's keep mortgage rates that little bit higher for longer.
LRDefender said:
Incredible!
She is very very very fortunate that the bank reimbursed her for the lost funds.
I guess she must feel a complete idiot now she can look back at the entire episode with a clear head.
She has a sad enough story to make it a PR disaster for the bank, definitely worth £310k for them. Had it been anyone else perhaps not.She is very very very fortunate that the bank reimbursed her for the lost funds.
I guess she must feel a complete idiot now she can look back at the entire episode with a clear head.
eyebeebe said:
When people complain that the banks are making too much profit and then I see that they decide to make the customer whole in cases like this, I can only agree.
Absolutely bonkers. I really don‘t see what the banks can do to protect people further. How many times do we see the opposite side of this where customers complain that the bank wants to know their inside leg measurements to approve transfers of paltry sums. They really can‘t win.
Disclaimer: I work for a bank outside the UK, but like to think I can be even handed
Whereas when I hear people complaining that banks are making too much profit and then read a story like this, it heartens me that the bank have refunded her.Absolutely bonkers. I really don‘t see what the banks can do to protect people further. How many times do we see the opposite side of this where customers complain that the bank wants to know their inside leg measurements to approve transfers of paltry sums. They really can‘t win.
Disclaimer: I work for a bank outside the UK, but like to think I can be even handed
It boggles the mind of those of us who have a sane one, how people can fall for this. But reading her story, it's clear how vulnerable she was.
The banks must carry insurance for stuff like this now.
Muzzer79 said:
Whereas when I hear people complaining that banks are making too much profit and then read a story like this, it heartens me that the bank have refunded her.
It boggles the mind of those of us who have a sane one, how people can fall for this. But reading her story, it's clear how vulnerable she was.
The banks must carry insurance for stuff like this now.
I see a clear difference between vulnerable and foolish. She was warned 9 nine! times it could be fraud and ignored it. She lied directly to the bank about the relationship. I sympathise with the losses she has had, but her actions beggar belief. If she were suffering from a mentally debilitating disease, I would be far more inclined to agree with you.It boggles the mind of those of us who have a sane one, how people can fall for this. But reading her story, it's clear how vulnerable she was.
The banks must carry insurance for stuff like this now.
I can't imagine any insurer would cover this risk at a reasonable premium and imagine their loss adjusters to be a tad harsher than the banks are being.
Muzzer79 said:
The banks must carry insurance for stuff like this now.
They carry professional indemnity insurance to cover customers losing money due to the bank's error. So it covers their legal liability to their clients. You can't buy insurance to cover your decision to reimburse a customer out of goodwill when you have no legal reason to do so. WonkeyDonkey said:
How do all these thick idiots always have so much money to throw away?
This is what I don't understand, these people clearly have low IQs, yet just happen to have hundreds of thousands of pounds lying around. How on earth did they manage to accumulate this money in the first place?Who on earth would send a single penny to someone they had never even met before?
eyebeebe said:
I see a clear difference between vulnerable and foolish. She was warned 9 nine! times it could be fraud and ignored it. She lied directly to the bank about the relationship. I sympathise with the losses she has had, but her actions beggar belief. If she were suffering from a mentally debilitating disease, I would be far more inclined to agree with you.
I can't imagine any insurer would cover this risk at a reasonable premium and imagine their loss adjusters to be a tad harsher than the banks are being.
I think that's where I am.I can't imagine any insurer would cover this risk at a reasonable premium and imagine their loss adjusters to be a tad harsher than the banks are being.
I suppose the banks consider whether her mental state made her ignore the warnings and lie?
I really don't want to appear unsympathetic as I'm not but I'm really struggling with what more the bank could have done to protect her from herself.
This almost seems to send the message that it doesn't matter how reckless you are the banks will protect you from yourself.
The fraudsters cast their nets far and wide and the maw of averages means they will catch a prize fish, which this woman was to them. Those scam emails we Al get and ignore, we’ll sone people don’t see the scam, pass their details which the fraudsters pass around to each other, and on this occasion a romance fraudster struck lucky with her.
I know of women who have fell for this, have an internet romance with say an oil rig worker or soldier overseas who is using fake photos etc and make them feel special and they finally arrange to meet, only their wages haven’t cleared and they just need her to send them the air fare money for the flight. But then there’s another problem that requires just a bit more money….. but not to worry, they will pay it all back when they finally meet, which will be real soon. When the scam is realised it’s too late and she has sent him ££thousands and is usually too embarrassed to admit it to anyone.
I know of a female doctor who fell victim, and initially didn’t report it as she was married. Their life savings gone, along with the marriage.
I know of women who have fell for this, have an internet romance with say an oil rig worker or soldier overseas who is using fake photos etc and make them feel special and they finally arrange to meet, only their wages haven’t cleared and they just need her to send them the air fare money for the flight. But then there’s another problem that requires just a bit more money….. but not to worry, they will pay it all back when they finally meet, which will be real soon. When the scam is realised it’s too late and she has sent him ££thousands and is usually too embarrassed to admit it to anyone.
I know of a female doctor who fell victim, and initially didn’t report it as she was married. Their life savings gone, along with the marriage.
Joey Deacon said:
WonkeyDonkey said:
How do all these thick idiots always have so much money to throw away?
This is what I don't understand, these people clearly have low IQs, yet just happen to have hundreds of thousands of pounds lying around. How on earth did they manage to accumulate this money in the first place?Who on earth would send a single penny to someone they had never even met before?
eyebeebe said:
I see a clear difference between vulnerable and foolish. She was warned 9 nine! times it could be fraud and ignored it. She lied directly to the bank about the relationship. I sympathise with the losses she has had, but her actions beggar belief. If she were suffering from a mentally debilitating disease, I would be far more inclined to agree with you.
It is staggering what people are prepared to believe (and throw money at) if they want it badly enough. See religion (eternal life) and crypto currency (going to get rich with zero effort or knowledge). Joey Deacon said:
This is what I don't understand, these people clearly have low IQs, yet just happen to have hundreds of thousands of pounds lying around. How on earth did they manage to accumulate this money in the first place?
Who on earth would send a single penny to someone they had never even met before?
Not sure if serious!Who on earth would send a single penny to someone they had never even met before?
Obviously they get given it. Often inheritance or divorce settlement. Usually the story states or alludes to this fact.
Look around the people you know. I’d be surprised if everyone doesn’t know at least someone who gets subsidised. I know quite a few. Some of them are useless. Don’t work or capable of low paid work only but have decent cars, houses etc. Most don’t shout it from the rooftops as they like the pretence that they are more successful then they really are.
wiffmaster said:
The PSR published a report this week which highlights the scale of the problem and the ridiculously high percentage of APP fraud that banks reimburse.
It's a problem that has been around for years and we have introduced initiatives like Confirmation of Payee to try and counter it, but it's still one of the biggest challenges in the payments industry today.
In theory, customers won't be reimbursed if they've been negligent...but that barrier is currently set far too high in my view. Seems that customers can take some utterly inane actions and yet still receive compensation - even if they have gone directly against the bank's guidance and / or lied about the purpose of the payment. We need to differentiate between genuinely vulnerable people being exploited vs. idiots vs. fraudsters.
It's going to get worse with the new PSR requirements coming in that mean even more people will receive refunds.
It's absolutely ripe for exploitation by fraudsters. Fraudster 1 opens account and make a payment to Fraudster 2 (likely using mule account). Fraudster 1 claims they were tricked and bank refunds their money within 5 days. Fraudster 2 has already moved the money / converted it to crypto and it's now unrecoverable. Fraudster 1 and 2 split the profits 50/50.
Oh, and whilst it's technically the banks who absorb the cost, it will inevitably get passed on to customers one way or another. Oh, we've lost another £150m to APP fraud? Let's keep mortgage rates that little bit higher for longer.
Or just make it even more impossible for the rest of us to get anything done.It's a problem that has been around for years and we have introduced initiatives like Confirmation of Payee to try and counter it, but it's still one of the biggest challenges in the payments industry today.
In theory, customers won't be reimbursed if they've been negligent...but that barrier is currently set far too high in my view. Seems that customers can take some utterly inane actions and yet still receive compensation - even if they have gone directly against the bank's guidance and / or lied about the purpose of the payment. We need to differentiate between genuinely vulnerable people being exploited vs. idiots vs. fraudsters.
It's going to get worse with the new PSR requirements coming in that mean even more people will receive refunds.
It's absolutely ripe for exploitation by fraudsters. Fraudster 1 opens account and make a payment to Fraudster 2 (likely using mule account). Fraudster 1 claims they were tricked and bank refunds their money within 5 days. Fraudster 2 has already moved the money / converted it to crypto and it's now unrecoverable. Fraudster 1 and 2 split the profits 50/50.
Oh, and whilst it's technically the banks who absorb the cost, it will inevitably get passed on to customers one way or another. Oh, we've lost another £150m to APP fraud? Let's keep mortgage rates that little bit higher for longer.
It's been nearly 2 years since my father passed away in admittedly unpleasant circumstances, but my mother can't get a modest equity release on her property, diligence/care of duty being cited over speculations about her grievance. They just won't talk to her. My guess is they're fearfull of stuff like this becoming the next ppi? People a few years later going after the inheritance their poor ma was "conned" out of?
It's amazing how scamsters and fraudsters manage to move money around with seeming consummate ease when the rest of us cant get shat don't without being put on trial - the hassle we had buying our house using some funds from abroad for the deposit was absurd.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff