• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
onlyme

Bank security and Fraud prevention

Recommended Posts

WTF - where were the withdrawal tracking metrics to flag the multiple large withdrawals?

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/beatthescammers/article-4358442/Santander-fraud-victims-tell-anguish.html

When I found my £180,000 life savings had gone I sat on the floor and howled: Santander fraud victims reveal how their lives have been shattered

  • Alex Luke, 49, from London, had £180,000 stolen from her Santander account
  • Crooks snatched the money in 33 withdrawals in just 24 hours

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"articulate 49-year-old had just learnt that every penny of the £180,000 she had saved from her business had been stolen by fraudsters. "

How does that work for tax purposes?
If you owe tax on it if it's all income from this year,,? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

"articulate 49-year-old had just learnt that every penny of the £180,000 she had saved from her business had been stolen by fraudsters. "

How does that work for tax purposes?
If you owe tax on it if it's all income from this year,,? 

She's had the money so she owes tax on it. 

I breathed a sigh of relief when I hit the phrase "online banking"; the best anti-fraud measure is to not register for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

She's had the money so she owes tax on it. 

I breathed a sigh of relief when I hit the phrase "online banking"; the best anti-fraud measure is to not register for this.

That just leaves you open to scammers registering in your name - happened to someone I know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, sarahbell said:

"articulate 49-year-old had just learnt that every penny of the £180,000 she had saved from her business had been stolen by fraudsters. "

How does that work for tax purposes?
If you owe tax on it if it's all income from this year,,? 

Strange question to ask?

But it appears that if the money was still in the company account, as suggested, then she can claim it as a loss for tax purposes

https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2006/03/09/3896/stolen-tax-relief

I am not, however, suggesting that nicking any of your own money would be a good tax scam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, This Time said:

That just leaves you open to scammers registering in your name - happened to someone I know.

Could be, and I've twice been caught on credit cards despite my being very careful where I use it, e.g. when buying fuel at other than my two regular garages I always pay cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Cunning Plan said:

Strange question to ask?

But it appears that if the money was still in the company account, as suggested, then she can claim it as a loss for tax purposes

https://www.taxation.co.uk/articles/2006/03/09/3896/stolen-tax-relief

I am not, however, suggesting that nicking any of your own money would be a good tax scam.

No it was just cos it was company money I asked.
I don't ever think pinching any money is a good idea, especially your own.
But the thought of being robbed AND still owing the tax man.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, sarahbell said:

No it was just cos it was company money I asked.
I don't ever think pinching any money is a good idea, especially your own.
But the thought of being robbed AND still owing the tax man.. 

In fact, assuming it was still in the business, she could get a corporation tax refund of 20% of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No excusing stupidity for actually falling for these scams but there are a few issues that need to be answered.

The calling numbers must be trackable - ffs if the services are going to do anything with their blanket surveillance and constant monitoring - would have thought mass attempts at fraud of citizens would be near the top of the list, then again maybe not. Then there is the telephone service providers - you can get call barring etc, but at a price - a price not to be bombarded by fraudsters - something very wrong with that situation and data from barred calls could easily be used to flag up suspicious call origination.

People are being duped because a significant amount of information seems to be leaking out in regards tel no./name/account no's - when somebody calls by name and provides verifying details the vulnerable are much more likely to be taken in. Some questions to be asked about security of data in certain locations.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What annoys me about this sort of thing, is that there's no way that they'd allow me to get a bank account without multiple proofs of ID, meeting me, that sort of thing.

Yet money just manages to disappear from the banking system without a question.

Surely this is either a sign of the banks' failing to meet their KYC mandate, whilst simultaneously giving maximum hassle to normal customers, or a sign of the banks sending vast sums overseas without triggering their alarms.

I'd love a banking option that said 'I won't want to transfer money outside of the UK ever, or at least, not without sitting down in a bank and filling in forms' -- that could be coupled with 'if my money goes into a UK bank account and you're unable to work out where it has gone / recover it, then I want full compensation by the bank because they've clearly fluffed up their Know-Your-Customer obligations'.  Of course, a harsh approach like that would overnight reduce this kind of fraud to near-zero, because the banks wouldn't be able to cope with their liability.  Shows that they could do something about it now, just that they can't be bothered (where is their incentive?  The losses are usually held by the customer...)

I'd also like bank account numbers to have a two-digit (or more) extension, essentially a hash of the account number -- that would reduce massively the likelihood of mistakes on transfer due to transcription error / fat-finger.  Will they do this?  Why would they want to..? Again, the problem is borne by the customer, so there isn't any incentive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.