• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Warning: Fraud attempt

I have 3 good personal reasons for being a basically honest person. I am too lazy to think up ways of being crooked. 2) I m not smart enough to be crooked. 3) I'd be too afraid of going to hell when I die. As hard as life is here, it's actually very short. In hell it is extremely long.
 
Last edited:

Ditto!
 
Amen!
 
Eric Rose said:
The cheque will initially clear but then get called back when they determine it's fraudulent.
Click to expand...
So the cheque is accepted as a legitimate cheque and is cleared by the bank into the victim's account but when the cheque shows as cleared in the victim's account the full background bank cheque clearing system is not in fact complete. The bank then discovers that the cheque for instance is a forgery/ does not come from a real account and gets called back.

It would seem the morale of that story is to find out from your bank what the "real clearing" time and not send the balance back to the scammer until this period has passed.

In the U.K. the advice is normally: do not part with the goods until the cheque has cleared i.e. in your account and I had always thought that the bank's advice on this was based on the full clearing system having been executed.

I might be wrong, in which case we have a system that the proverbial Number 9 bus can be driven through by a scammer and when you complain to your bank that the cheque had appeared in your account as cleared the bank shrugs its shoulders and says "Tough, your fault for thinking that a cheque cleared in your account was safe"

Any U.K. participants know what the law or banking code is in the U.K. on this. Are we as vulnerable, thinking that the money showing in your account cannot be called back/ declared effectively null and void.

pentaxuser
 
The international banking system is particularly poor at dealing with these fraudulent schemes.
It can sometimes take weeks or even months to actually confirm that a foreign cheque, money order or draft is valid and cannot be reversed.
And lawyers are one of the main targets for this sort of scam.
Although no longer practising, I still get regular updates from the BC Law Society about the latest permutations of this type of scam.
Part of the reason for this is that many of the clearing systems no longer return the actual cheque/money order/draft to the issuing branch. Instead, digital images are sent back and forth. While one might reasonably assume that would speed things up, instead it seems to have just inserted uncertainty and the opportunity for fraud.
I don't know whether the banks in the UK offer this, but over here there are lots of ads here trumpeting the ability to "deposit" cheques by using an app on a smart phone to send a photo of the cheque to your bank. But guess what - this makes it easy to deposit the same cheque into two or more accounts. So now, banks are much more likely to put holds on funds deposited by cheque.
 
Thanks Matt but in the event of a cheque from someone who apparently has an account in the same country, are you saying that there is no way to be reasonably sure that in Canada, for instance, that a cleared cheque is genuine, short of waiting weeks which is hardly practical. If so then what does a person receiving a cheque do in terms of sending the "goods" in exchange?

pentaxuser
.
 
In the US, and possibly the UK, money deposited in bank accounts belongs to the bank, not the depositor. The deposit is an unsecured debt obligation of the bank. This is part of the 2300 page Dodd-Frank Act. Unsecured debt holders are last in line for repayment, and funny as it may seem, first in line are any holders of derivative bets!
So, in trivial matters, like disputed checks, the bank can not lose to the depositor. In bigger matters like bank failure, the bank can use your money as a "bail in" to preserve liquidity. Money just ain't what it's cracked up to be.
 
Sometimes your bank can help by making an enquiry with the issuing bank.
Local (within country) cheques usually reveal problems much quicker than more exotic versions.
 
ReginaldSMith said:
In the US, and possibly the UK, money deposited in bank accounts belongs to the bank, not the depositor. The deposit is an unsecured debt obligation of the bank. This is part of the 2300 page Dodd-Frank Act.
Click to expand...
This is the historical situation - much older than Dodd-Frank. It was probably part of the law in place when the US declared independence.
The issue of who might have priority ant to what extent in the case of a bank's collapse is modified by much more recent legislation.
 

They call me about my PC and I am using a Mac. I ask them for the URL that they want me to input and I do a search to find out which scheme they are playing. Then I read back the posted screens to them so that they think I went to those pages. They get really frustrated after a while because they just cannot seem to find me. I also document all they contact information that they provide and send the information to the FCC complaint for at https://consumercomplaints.fcc.gov/hc/en-us/articles/115002206106
 
faberryman said:
In my neck of the woods, they have some rotating call number schema so that call blocking is a fruitless exercise.
Click to expand...

I knock them out one at a time. Each time adds to the FCC database and helps get them caught.
 
I don't waste my time. I just hang up.
 
faberryman said:
I don't waste my time. I just hang up.
Click to expand...

When others and me take up their time, they are losing income. I just want to help them out of business.
 
faberryman said:
In my neck of the woods, they have some rotating call number schema so that call blocking is a fruitless exercise.
Click to expand...
This is certainly the case in my area, where all incoming nuisance calls show my area code, and my exchange code, so as to mimic a local friend or business calling, when in fact the caller is in a foreign country.

In spite of the lip service paid by pols, this is such a lucrative business, with so many political connections, it will never be stopped by law, and the Telcos and IP folk make far too much money to invest in any tools that would allow their stand alone customers to block this activity.
 
You can complain as much as you like, you’ll never get them. The companies that do this are in India and make phonecalls all over the world.
Even if you trace them and complain at the local police, they do nothing. A tv program here did this and confronted the owner with the prove they found and that was it. There was no way to stop them.
Regards,
Frank
 

Assuming that the cheque is drawn on one of the the charters banks, one can always visit a branch of that bank and request that the cheque be certified. there is of course a fee for this! each of the banks can do an enquiry online on their computer to ensure there are unds available, and probably even call up the specimen signature on the acount. they then can pull the money into their CC fund, and mark the cheque "Certified do not destroy". of course if the cheque is drawn on say the Laurentian Bank and you live in Vancouver, or the Canadian Western bank and you live in Newfoundland you may not have a local branch to visit. Another network effect that helps the business of TD, RBC, CIBC, Scotia and BMO. not sure if TD or BMO branches in the states can reach out to certify a cheque written on a Canadian account.
 
Many of the Canadian banks are either withdrawing or proposing withdrawal of cheque certification as a service.
I'm guessing that the reason behind this is that the "deposit using your smart phone" applications make cheque certification essentially worthless - certification doesn't in any way prevent depositing a cheque two, three or more times .
Same problem with bank drafts.
 

The deposit by Phone protocol as I understand it has the user photograph the cheque with their phone, and then be told they have so many minutes to send another picture of the same cheque with a line drawn through it or some other defacement. I would expect that making multiple copies of a cheque "good enough" to pass a smart phone, so the same cheque can be deposited in different banks, or even making an overlay saying VOID to make it appear the cheque was defaced would be much easier than faking the security features on a real cheque and infantily easier than faking actual Currency. Of course I an an old codger who remebers his mother telling him to always carefully keep his canceled cheques so I could prove I paid my Bills on time. More than once II have actually told someone that "why yes, I have the cheque right here, you deposited on March 27 at the King and bathurst branch of Bank X in account 02-34567- please figure out why my bill was not marked paid." Simpler times.
 

Nice! Couldnt agree more

Marcelo
 

https://www.taxdefensepartners.com/...0-detained-in-india-for-irs-phone-scam-fraud/

And I'm pretty sure I've seen an article about a ring of scammers being indicted for running a Nigerian 419 type scam. The scammers only get caught if people fill out the forms and report the calls, e-mails, or whatever. In the US, you can register your phone number on the do not call list and then you can report calls you get that aren't allowed. Most of the calls we get are robocalls, so I don't get to play with the caller, but I can still report the time, date, and number from callerID. That lets them run traces for who is spoofing the number. There's a joint task force run mostly by the FBI, but with help of the FTC.

cmacd123 said:
The deposit by Phone protocol as I understand it has the user photograph the cheque with their phone, and then be told they have so many minutes to send another picture of the same cheque with a line drawn through it or some other defacement.
Click to expand...
My bank and my husband's bank just require the picture of the check as it is and that's all. They say to write void on it after, but they don't ask for a photo of it that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register