Just a thought, feel free to give me a slap...

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 Apr 03, 2007 4:19 am

Would it not be possible to get WU to help catch the scammers? (Or are they really not interested?)
I was just thinking on the lines of.....We can give WU proof of the scam and they could issue a special MTCN code that alerts the cashier when the mugus go to collect the money.

As I said...Just a thought.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:24 am

And what do they hold them for? What do they claim is happening? Who would arrest them? You sent the money of your own volition. The are just picking it up. The crimes comes when they don't give you what they promised. Which is always uncertain because the lad can say yes we were going to send it later.

What proof do you give?

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:26 am

I agree with you, it wasn't me.

Most of the newsletters that my store receives from Western Union are regarding funding terrorism. And that "your location is subject to an audit at anytime". I was thinking about contacting my store's corporate department that is in charge of WU, and asking them about what we could do at a local level, and as a corporation to help stop scammers.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:29 am

I dunno, just if they had a fraud site or something, one could prove it was a fraud by the emails sent and received claiming to be who they aren't.
It just seems to me that if WU or Moneygram did something to help the situation they create, then we might get somewhere.
It would take someone far more intelligent that me to figure something out!

I do however realise that WU/ MG do what they do because there are millions of people who use them legitimately.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 4:53 am

WU started to warn people a few years ago. Mostly with signs. I have heard of a WU operator mentioning scams when a person comes in and wants to send money to a 'hot spot'. But they can't force a person to not send money. They also had (maybe still have) a limit on the amount you can send per day to some countries. Which is why scammers ask for smallish amounts.

It always seems to come down to cost/benefit. WU would not make money on it and the law would spend a large amount of time and money with not many arrests to show for it. Crossing country borders always has problems.

It is a nice dream but no one has come up with a workable solution or it would have been stopped long ago.

So until then, here we are.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:04 am

I know to send from UK to NZ it has to be under $2,000.

It's such a shame that big businesses don't help small people. But I know what you mean about the difficulties. Rather than warning the people who are sending the money, I was thinking more about catching the lads on collection.

I read a post here, can't remember who's it was, where one of the lads was arrested for trying to get the money using a fake name/Id. The police always say they can't do anything because they are too hard to find. If they were onto them before they went for the money however...

But I take your words of wisdon Dr Who as you say "In an ideal world..."

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 5:05 am

As per instruction of my store's manager, we are to ask anyone sending money out of the country, or a large amount within the country, if the actually know the person that they are sending to. If yes, then we go ahead with the transaction, if no, then we warn them that there is a potential for fraud. Our store limits all single transactions to $5,000, and the terminal says, if I recall correctly, that there is a $7,500 daily limit when sending to Nigeria, and $10,000 for most other countries. At least WU does require that all transactions sent to Nigeria and C�te d'Ivoire require a test question. Which is probably so scammers won't steal other scammers ill-gotten money... lol Most of the people who send money through us are Mexican-Americans, who are sending money home to their families.

But, I'm sure that every location does things different.

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:53 am

Hi I-W-M,

Here in the colonies I stopped by at the WU at Waly-World today to see just what advice they offer.

What they have available--if one sending cash cares to look--is a leaflet entitled "Did A Stranger Ask You To Send Money"? 'Tips on How To Avoid Being the Victim of Consumer Fraud'. But said warning leaflet is not offered to you, instead it sits next to the send/receive forms.

It is small--about 6"x3"--printed both sides--and has the usual 'bewares' but makes no mention of 419. Does mention a 'lost-pet' scam... It's also ostensibly a legal disclaimer on the part of WU telling the sender that WU can-not and will-not be held liable for anything. No doubt some vics out there have tried to blame them for their own gullibility/vulnerability/stupidity and other 'idities'. Not to make light of vics by me here, but it doesn't take an Einstein or Perry Mason to realize that they have no legal recourse against WU.

The key phrase 'of their own volition' so succinctly expressed by above Mod Dr Who. That's it in a nutshell.

The true screw-up comes because WU offices--by themself--are a rare vanishing breed now. The majority are just one teensy part of a mega-mart or even small supermarket. And teenagers behind the counter who make the transaction w/o ever questioning why an older person is sending thousand$ overseas. Sharper/older WU-connected people would immediately make the connection and ask pertinent questions and hopefully stop a vic from potential fraud.... Sigh. Alas. It's cheaper to hire clue-less teens at minimum salary. They also mop the floors too as part of their hourly wage.

I liken it to the on-board aircraft instructions and emergency info given to all passengers. For the most part nobody pays attention until they realize they should have.

So to answer what you said--looks like WU wants no part of any of it other than their transfer fees. They gave the warning if you cared to notice.

cheerz--jervis tetch --mad hatter

Posted: Tue Apr 03, 2007 2:43 pm

A close friend of my family was a victim of a scam. A con artist met her through her church and somehow convinced her to go to the bank and withdraw her life savings. At the bank, the manager was suspicious and pulled her aside to try to persuade her to reconsider. She was adamant, and in the end, they were unable to stop her. I believe the bank tried to do everything in their power to intervene. But she was under the spell, and the bank was ultimately powerless.

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 9:37 am

Luckey--love your avatar ^^^--it's smokin'!!

You got that right. Most bank tellers here in the USA are indeed trained to be on the alert for elderly persons withdrawing large sums of cash or having a cashiers' check drawn up by a customer who hadn't done that before.

But ultimately, sadly, there is nothing that can be done if the vic is steadfast in their demand to have access to their money. And rightfully so, but to later chagrin in many instances.

cheerz---jervis tetch (for the family)

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:31 pm

^^What was so heartbreaking about that incident was that the scammers escorted her to the bank. With the criminals right there in the bank, you would think that something could have been done to stop them, but the only thing the bank had to go on was suspicion. She was fully within her rights to withdraw her money. I cringe every time I think of it. We all pulled together to help her out afterward, so she's fine now. In that sense, money was taken from all of us.

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 1:43 pm

it wasn't me wrote:

I was thinking more about catching the lads on collection.

Considering the scammer could show up to pick up the money in any of the thousands of WU locations worldwide, are they going to have a stakeout in all of them? The scammer is not locked into using one outlet. With a few exceptions, they can pick it up out of the country you "send" it to, even. The receiver's address doesn't mean much, really.These services are largely designed for the convenience of people who might be traveling abroad and need cash from home.

Quote:

I read a post here, can't remember who's it was, where one of the lads was arrested for trying to get the money using a fake name/Id.

If it's the one I think you're thinking of, the lad in question was going to a Moneygram terminal located inside a bank with a no-nonsense approach to security. (Didn't someone say this bank employed guards armed with machine guns or that it was common practice? Seems like the bank was in Ghana...)

After being severely annoyed by said lad (or maybe more than one lad) coming in repeatedly and wasting their time with fake transfers and fake transfer receipts, they had him arrested. After the approach became popular, and several lads were sent to the bank by baiters, they seemed to stop arresting them. It was fun while it lasted, but it didn't last long.

And as I recall, the arrest had nothing to do with the attempted scamming of the baiter. It was more because they thought the lad was trying to guess transfer numbers and fake the receipt for them. They arrested the lad for trying to scam Moneygram/the bank, not for scamming the "victim". Seems like there was some kerfuffle over him having a fake ID, too, but this is all from the dregs of my fuzzy memory, so take that with a grain of salt, or maybe a whole shaker.

I'm not sure it's fair to say WU/MG creates the situation at all. They just speed up the process. It would take longer for a victim to stick some cash inside a birthday card or a FedEx/DHL/courier envelope and post it to the scammer, and it might cost more, but the cash is just as lost when you send it, and the police are likely to be just as disinclined to pursue it. The scammer's home country is not going to spend thousands in resources to pursue a scammer that cost a non-citizen $500, and vice versa, the victim's local police aren't going to spend thousands on finding a non-citizen that probably won't get prosecuted.

WU does have a report fraud option on one of their hotlines, and several fraud warnings on their site. MG has warnings, particularly about foreign lotteries, don't know about the fraud hotline. They could advertise it better, certainly.

I answer submitted questions on a scam info site. And if there's one thing I've learned, it's that you can't make people read (or comprehend, rather) what they're signing or even exercise common sense. Case in point, I've spoken to many an American lotto scam victim who sent off the "fee" for some Canadian lottery who did not read the Moneygram transfer slip, which has a "do not send money to foreign lotteries, they are all scams" warning on it. They're like software license agreements that way.

Other case in point, I've had people who received fake checks from postal lottery scams argue me that they can just pop off down to their local bank/check cashing place, cash it and keep the money with no legal or financial consequences, even though they say they understand the lottery is fake. Or even people who still ask you if the check is real. *facepalm* Why would a FAKE lottery send a REAL check and ask you to send only part of it back? Wouldn't that be the opposite of scamming? Do they think the bank is going to generously let you keep the money because you "didn't know it was fake, wink, wink"?

Maybe it's just me, but I think a vague phrase like "potential for fraud" would probably be ignored much like the printed disclaimers and warnings. However, it's completely impractical to think you can give a customer the complete verbal rundown on Advanced Fee Fraud 101 before every transfer. Especially given the trend of the terminals being part of other businesses, and usually being operated by employees with other primary job responsibilities. I've thought this over several times, and while I would love to see better fraud prevention from wire transfer services, I'll be darned if I can think of a practical way to make it happen and actually work. Scam victims tend not to think of their scammers as "strangers", too. Scammers tend to cultivate a lot of trust in people they get to send money.

Posted: Wed Apr 04, 2007 4:47 pm

After what has been mentioned above, the best route is through education of potential victims.

If we had contact details for WU / MG people rather than the generic contacts then we could launch some sort of charm offensive. We have enough propaganda posters about fraud. We could attempt to influence WU / MG into more prominent warnings in outlets.

It could be launched through a cooperative effort of the anti fraud websites like scampatrol and fraudwatchers. It would be much more effective through one of these than a baiting site.

Just and though and my 2p.

Just a thought, feel free to give me a slap...	View next topic View previous topic