Should they get their money back?

[Gersemi]

I saw a programme on TV where one brave soul that had been taken in by a scam like this spoke on camera. They explained that they had been totally mesmerised by the scammers. It's clear that they are very skilled in what they do. Obviously most folk are not taken in, but once they have you it seems they can convince you that it's all part of the 'fraud' that they are helping you thwart.

We all think that we wouldn't be caught out by such a thing. Obviously you are unlikely to be caught by a scam that you have heard about as it will seem familiar. But the scammers come up with new stuff all the time and I firmly believe that there is a scam out there to catch all of us. Wrong thing at the wrong time and suddenly you're caught out and left thinking 'how could I be so stupid?'. The only defence I know is to be constantly vigilant, consider all incoming communications to be suspicious if they are asking you to click on links or provide information, and to keep up to date with current scams doing the rounds.

It's easy to be scornful of people caught out, but I think 'there but for the grace of god go I'*

*I'm an atheist.

[Mike4]

There is a view on various consumer programmes that banks, who have lots of money, should always give it to sob story fraud victims. Its never made clear that these payments make the rest of us poorer, not the banks.

And further, these programmes nearly always talk about "refunding" the person fooled into giving their money away, as though the funds are still hanging around somewhere inside the bank and available to be "re"-funded.

If the funds have gone and the bank can't recover them, they can't be refunded in the narrow sense of the word. The bank might perhaps make a compensation payment but unless they recovered the funds, it isn't strictly a 'refund', is it?

[UncleEbenezer]

There is a view on various consumer programmes that banks, who have lots of money, should always give it to sob story fraud victims. Its never made clear that these payments make the rest of us poorer, not the banks.

And further, these programmes nearly always talk about "refunding" the person fooled into giving their money away, as though the funds are still hanging around somewhere inside the bank and available to be "re"-funded.

If the funds have gone and the bank can't recover them, they can't be refunded in the narrow sense of the word. The bank might perhaps make a compensation payment but unless they recovered the funds, it isn't strictly a 'refund', is it?

Prediction.

The next scandal in this series will be when the meeja uncover stories of these frauds being orchestrated. Pay money to accomplice (might even be yourself in disguise), claim it back from your bank, share the proceeds.

[uspaul666]

A little more on this, sometimes the bank can dig in their heels and get a good result:
Bank staff defy customers to prevent £55m of fraud
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66165920

[stewamax]

And since no-one else has said so, the published judgement is yet another lucid and well-written statement that is intelligible to non-lawyers.

It is interesting (to me...) that the judge finds no need for the long unpunctuated sentences, apparently illogical (but sanctified by precedent) ordering of clauses and jargon still used in documents that are as much read by non-lawyers, such as Wills. For example, I do know the difference between devise (give real property such as a house) and bequeath (give other types of property) but am unconvinced that verb give (in the context of a Will) doesn't encompass both. If it does - and I am happy to be corrected - why not use it. After all, it is usually family executors who need to interpret it.

Jargon has its place: between those of the same profession; and court judgements are read mainly by them.
But this judgement and most others I have read recently are models of lucidity.

When a medical consultant writes to a GP summarising his or her findings and recommendations, the use of precise medical terms is inevitable and expected. But I have sufficient grasp of medical jargon to detect those consultants who are using convoluted language unnecessarily, perhaps just to impress, and those who are trying to explain clearly. My assessment to date, based on an admittedly small sample, is about 50/50.

[Avantegarde]

A few thoughts:
The scammer was unbelievably clever. Imagine having the ability to fool people with this sort of story AND have the brains to prepare a coherent story in advance that covered almost any eventuality, including having the balls to tell the victims to let you listen in to their phone calls to the authorities via your mobile phone?
How exactly did the scammer know his victims had lots of money and might be susceptible to a scam?
The gullibility of people is extraordinary. I have two friends, both intelligent and well educated, one of whom told me he had lost an inheritance of several million pounds to a scammer, and the other of whom almost lost hundreds of thousands of pounds by being persuaded by an "investment advisor" to invest his money in some sort of German property business.
It is just incredible what some people will believe.

Moderator Message:
Edited a typo for clarity(chas49)

[Kantwebefriends]

Horror story. I suppose one defence is to assume that the potential frauds won't have set up a dummy police station or bank branch and therefore to attend those in person rather than rely on phone calls and so on. Might it be wise to go to a branch of your bank that isn't the branch where the account is based?

I've never understood how we are meant to know whether a purported policemen who visits us at home is indeed a policeman. He might show me a card of some sort but I would have no idea whether it was real or bogus. I don't see a solution except walking into the Nick myself.

[Kantwebefriends]

It's late and I'm tired so forgive me, please, if these points are weak.

"Part of JW's deception involved him causing Dr Philipp to doubt the genuineness of the telephone caller who was employed by HSBC's Fraud Department, based in Leeds, and whose initial contact about suspicious account activity had caused Dr Philipp to make the return call which was re-directed to JW."

How was that done and by whom? Philipp calls a genuine number at HSBC and is somehow redirected to the fraudulent JW. Does this mean that the crooks had somehow intercepted his call? Or does it mean there was an accomplice at HSBC? What have I missed here?

If I get a purported call from my bank should I use a different phone to call it back? How do I find the correct number to call? Search through old paperwork?

The last time I called my bank the girl answering tried to take me through "security". I pointed out that I hadn't called them in a decade and therefore had no idea of what my security details/identifiers/passwords were. So she let me proceed anyway, bless her. But it did make me wonder how much of this security stuff is mere theatre.

It's packed with inconsistencies. They tell you not to write your password down. But unless you use it frequently you won't be able to remember it among the dozens of other passwords in your life. One solution would be to use the same password for different accounts but they tell you not to. This all makes no sense. They tell us rules of behaviour that they must know perfectly well we are bound to break. AAAArgh.

As for Philipp? Bloody fool, poor sod. But as we age we may all become bloody fools. Just look at the gerontocracy that governs the USA.

[terminal7]

In late February 2018, Mrs and Dr Philipp came into telephone contact with a man using the pseudonym "Jonathan Watts" ("JW") and who, it is now clear, was out to defraud them

Clearly the doctor (and his wife - though apparently she had a modest income) had made/inherited large amounts of money and had said liquid assets in a number of readily accessible accounts. I ask myself - why were they targeted? Was it random and the scammers got lucky? Or was someone in the financial institutions used by them passing on info to the scammers. I suspect that even the wealthiest of Fools would have difficulty accessing this scale of money in a short term. Furthermore liquid assets should represent less than say 10% of a large cash asset base unless a major expenditure was on the horizon. I suspect that this couple were known to be financially unsophisticated and hence targeted.

Now the question is does the bank have a duty of care if they were aware of such behaviour? They certainly seemed to have gone through the procedures of ensuring that their customers 'knew what they were doing'. Maybe I missed it - but everytime I transfer money to an overseas bank account (my wife's!) I am asked what the reason for the transfer is and this is for very low 5 figure amounts. Vague response along the lines of needed for some contract appears worth challenging.

T7

[XFool]

It's late and I'm tired so forgive me, please, if these points are weak.

"Part of JW's deception involved him causing Dr Philipp to doubt the genuineness of the telephone caller who was employed by HSBC's Fraud Department, based in Leeds, and whose initial contact about suspicious account activity had caused Dr Philipp to make the return call which was re-directed to JW."

How was that done and by whom? Philipp calls a genuine number at HSBC and is somehow redirected to the fraudulent JW. Does this mean that the crooks had somehow intercepted his call? Or does it mean there was an accomplice at HSBC? What have I missed here?

Surely this was the well known "call back" scam?

The fraudster calls the victim, says "call this (possibly valid) bank number to confirm". The victim hangs up for the new call - but there is no reverse clear on the UK landline phone system, so the line is still open to the caller who has not put the phone down. In their haste the victim doesn't notice the absence of dial tone on their phone, just dials the number. They are promptly 'connected' to the 'bank'. i.e. To the fraudster who has simply been hanging on the phone and now 'answers' their 'call', or an accomplice answers.

If I get a purported call from my bank should I use a different phone to call it back? How do I find the correct number to call? Search through old paperwork?

Call on another phone or leave enough time for any existing call to time out and ensure you hear dial tone before dialling. Also, of course, your bank would not be making any such calls to you.

[mc2fool]

Call on another phone or leave enough time for any existing call to time out and ensure you hear dial tone before dialling. Also, of course, your bank would not be making any such calls to you.

Scammers often play a recording of the dial tone down the line.

[XFool]

Scammers often play a recording of the dial tone down the line.

I wondered about precisely this, up thread (or, at least, somewhere on TLF!). Scams move on...

[Lootman]

I would never have moved my money to an account of their suggestion.

That is Fraud 101.

Paul

I agree although the good doctor might have also said that prior to being fooled.

Although in my case I do genuinely think a scam like this could not work. Partly because I do not answer the phone unless I know the number - I just let it go to voicemail. And partly because I do not have online banking, so to make any kind of transfer I have to physically go to my branch. And my bank asks questions even with transfers or withdrawals of just a few hundred, let alone £700,000!

[kiloran]

Scammers often play a recording of the dial tone down the line.

I wondered about precisely this, up thread (or, at least, somewhere on TLF!). Scams move on...

Perhaps if you called your own number as a test, then if you get a reply, it's clearly a scam. I don't know if the scammers are smart enough to monitor the number you call.

--kiloran

[Mike4]

Call on another phone or leave enough time for any existing call to time out and ensure you hear dial tone before dialling. Also, of course, your bank would not be making any such calls to you.

Scammers often play a recording of the dial tone down the line.

Hearing a dial tone on my mobile? That would immediately set off alarms for me!

[mc2fool]

Scammers often play a recording of the dial tone down the line.

Hearing a dial tone on my mobile? That would immediately set off alarms for me!

It's only landlines that can be kept open by the caller.

[UncleEbenezer]

I've never understood how we are meant to know whether a purported policemen who visits us at home is indeed a policeman. He might show me a card of some sort but I would have no idea whether it was real or bogus. I don't see a solution except walking into the Nick myself.

A real copper who visits you at home won't prevent you 'phoning the real police and asking for clarification.

Unless perhaps it's a big bust, entering with a warrant to search for evidence of some (suspected) crime. Which I'd expect to be scary, but not part of an attempted fraud on your life savings.

[UncleEbenezer]

The fraudster calls the victim, says "call this (possibly valid) bank number to confirm". The victim hangs up for the new call - but there is no reverse clear on the UK landline phone system,

I thought they'd fixed that!

Or have they just promised to fix it at some future date?

[Clitheroekid]

A real copper who visits you at home won't prevent you 'phoning the real police and asking for clarification..

Ha! Good luck with that. Have you ever actually tried ringing the police non-emergency number 101?

A few months ago I received a voicemail from the local plod about some damage to a property I own. It asked me to call 101 and to quote a reference number.

I've got a screen shot showing that the phone rang out for 2 hours, 16 minutes and 58 seconds. I can't recall what happened at that point, but the call terminated without having been answered.

The fraudsters could quite confidently ask you to call 101, knowing you'd give up long before the call was answered, but the very fact that they'd invited you to call 101 would provide a huge boost to their credibility. The gross inefficiency of the plod in making themselves accessible to the public is actually encouraging fraud.

[Mike4]

A real copper who visits you at home won't prevent you 'phoning the real police and asking for clarification..

Ha! Good luck with that. Have you ever actually tried ringing the police non-emergency number 101?

A few months ago I received a voicemail from the local plod about some damage to a property I own. It asked me to call 101 and to quote a reference number.

I've got a screen shot showing that the phone rang out for 2 hours, 16 minutes and 58 seconds. I can't recall what happened at that point, but the call terminated without having been answered.

The fraudsters could quite confidently ask you to call 101, knowing you'd give up long before the call was answered, but the very fact that they'd invited you to call 101 would provide a huge boost to their credibility. The gross inefficiency of the plod in making themselves accessible to the public is actually encouraging fraud.

A few years ago I encountered a car nose first in a ditch in a country lane. Nobody inside or anywhere to be seen nearby, but the lights were still on and the engine running. We called 101 and after 45 minutes amazingly, the call was answered.

Apparently they "Know about it already, thanks". "Just leave it and get on your way..."