A curious twist to an old fraud

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 11:40 am

Quote:

S. B. writes: My bank, Barclays, cleared a cheque for £6,900 that I received from someone purchasing my motorcycle. The payment included shipping costs that I had to pass on. Barclays confirmed the cheque had cleared and allowed me to draw £3,400 and send it to the shipper. Two weeks later the bank debited the £6,900, leaving me in debt.

The unusual thing (as I read it) is that the victim's bank had told him that he had received a fakkey, but when he received another counterfeit he sent money to the scammer. ..... and the bank offered him a refund Shocked

However the victim didn't think that the amount was enough . Read on ....

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/money/article-1176714/TONY-HETHERINGTON-A-curious-twist-old-fraud.html

Note the difference between "Available" and "Cleared" Funds.

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 4:14 pm

From the article

Quote:

This second cheque was drawn on a Dublin bank account, even though your buyer said he was in Australia.

You have to say 'What was the victim thinking ?' to accept a second cheque after having the first one reported as a fake, and why accept a foreign cheque - as Southern Ireland is a foreign country as regards the UK.

In simple terms a bank will either 'negotiate' or 'collect' a foreign cheque, and may make that decision for you based on their own custom and practice. If it's negotiated you'll never be told when it's cleared, you are effectively loaned the money against the cheque clearing at some future date. You are charged a nominal amount for interest.

If it's collected, you will get told when it's cleared, but it could easily take a month or more to clear and even then they're likly to have recourse against you for a counterfeit cheque. They can always introduce the police as you have passed counterfeit paper, and you could end up arguing yourself into prison.

It sounds to me as if the cheque was negotiated, which was an innappropriate method to use, as clearance would never be confirmed. Banks assume customers know what they're doing, and using common sense to protect themselves. Accepting cheques from strangers is dangerous - to accept foreign cheques after having already received a dud one shows that this customer was flying on empty.

As the journalist said - the customer was offered a ridiculously generous settlement by the bank but lost it when he went to the FOS. You just can't talk sense into some people.

He's a victim but missed every opportunity to avoid his loss.

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 4:18 pm

"Unfortunate" describes the victim at first. Then "lucky" when the bank offered to refund the actual amount lost (I don't know of many banks that would do that - most would send a copper over to ask you a few uncomfortable questions). Then "greedy" when he demanded the full amount of the check.

IMO he'll get what he deserves. Wink

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 4:32 pm

^^^^
He was fortunate at first. The first check was identified as fake before he had a chance to make a WU payment.
I feel sorry for scam victims, but make an exception in this case.

Posted: Tue May 05, 2009 8:00 pm

how interesting . i am loath to use this term in respect of fraud victims normally but this guy was a prize fool . he could have made the money he lost back but did'nt . this is the first time i have ever heard of a bank offering a refund on monies lost to fraud . sadly for other victims it will probably be the last time too .

A curious twist to an old fraud	View next topic View previous topic