Fraud - is it any wonder?

[EddieB]

I've recently suffered from theft of my post, it having been left in an unsecure place by the front door by a new postman.  Someone has used the contents to make bogus calls reporting two credit cards lost or stolen.

 

The first credit card company (which I won't name and shame) appear not to have bothered to ask basic security questions (beyond basic name and address), blocked my existing card and sent out a replacement - which was lost or stolen in the post.  The first I knew was when I received a PIN reminder unexpectedly and my suspicions were aroused.   Other than noting the time (and another call attempting to reset the PIN unsuccessfully), the credit card company didn't log any details of caller's number (or indeed whether their number was withheld) or what security questions were asked.

 

Apparently a similar call was then made to a second credit card company.  I found this out only when trying to use my card and finding it had been blocked.  Calling the credit card company, they informed me that a temporary block had been placed after they received a suspicious call to report the card lost or stolen, which failed their security checks.  They have a full call record, including the originating number.

 

Thankfully I have suffered no loss (other than time and inconvenience), but remain in dispute with credit card company number one until they can prove that they're tightening their secirity as a result of my complaint.  The second credit company won't release the caller's number to me (I wouldn't want it), they will give it to the police (which is what I want), but they won't contact the police directly themselves.

 

You might think that the police would be pleased to be given such information and act upon it.   While it might be a lead going nowhere, it might also point them to an opportunist or even an organised gang.  Just the simple expedient of following up the registration of that number would take a few minutes and might help to prevent crime.

 

Likewise the credit card companies.  They're always urging us to be vigilant, but it seems they have little incentive to act on fraud - after all they pass on their losses to their customers.

 

The police 101 service aren't interested and just referred me to Action Fraud.  Action Fraud, for the uninitiated, appears to be little more than an information collection agency, saving the police from the drudgery of paperwork, while producing impressive statistics on how crime is increasing and the profile of the victims.

 

Is it any wonder that fraud is becoming so prevalent in our society?

 

Rant over.

[gr.king]

It is high time that the police were COMPELLED themselves by law to enforce the WHOLE of the law, at all times, and not just the bits that individual chief constables consider to be strategic priorities, politically acceptable, ethnically sensitive, or "for the greater good". The resources to enable this to be done should be provided, even if this has to be at the expense of various do-good or social engineering schemes.

[Horsetan]

.....The police 101 service aren't interested and just referred me to Action Fraud.  Action Fraud, for the uninitiated, appears to be little more than an information collection agency, saving the police from the drudgery of paperwork, while producing impressive statistics on how crime is increasing and the profile of the victims.....

 

It should really be renamed InAction Fraud. That is its real purpose - a void into which fraud reports simply disappear.

[MJI]

My wife had money stolen from her account, and it was traceable, but that was done was a refund and some compensation. No prosecutions carried out

[Fat Controller]

My wife had money stolen from her account, and it was traceable, but that was done was a refund and some compensation. No prosecutions carried out

Depending on the nature of the fraud, banks may decide not to press charges, for fear of encouraging copycat crimes (if the fraud is an external job) or of damaging their reputation (if an insider one). It's quite likely that they would not even inform the police if the matter was 'sensitive' enough.

[MJI]

Depending on the nature of the fraud, banks may decide not to press charges, for fear of encouraging copycat crimes (if the fraud is an external job) or of damaging their reputation (if an insider one). It's quite likely that they would not even inform the police if the matter was 'sensitive' enough.

 

The Police were informed but took it no further as lack of proof!

 

A few years ago now but was annoying

[jonny777]

I think Royal Mail is an easy target for this kind of fraud, because it must be obvious in many cases which mail items might contain new cards.

 

I thought sending valuable items by Recorded Delivery was the answer until one package sent that way never arrived. It was impossible to trace because it seems that the only record they had was the date and time of it being sent (i.e. paid for at the Post Office). It then disappeared into the system until I signed for its delivery (which of course I never did), and no one at RM could tell me anything about its progress between those two points on its journey.

 

I send everything by courier these days, even Yodel and Hermes, because the progress can be tracked at every stage. I know that Parcel Force have a similar tracking procedures, but they seem not to take small items; and they can be very expensive. I sent two identical parcels to London a few weeks ago, the first by Hermes cost me £6.50; but they said they had no courier to deliver to the second postcode, so being in a bit of a hurry I sent the second one by Parcel Force from the Post Office. Their cheapest quote was £15.

 

Maybe I am just unlucky, but if they do not pull their fingers out, I can see Royal Mail becoming the next Tesco.

[MJI]

I use collect+ quite a bit as well

[Ian J.]

...The resources to enable this to be done should be provided...

 

And therein lies the problem. Policing all possible laws fully would probably take the entire tax income of the United Kingdom, leaving nothing left for the NHS, keeping roads in order, subsidizing the railways, etc, etc, etc. But down that road politics lies, so time to leave that particular area of this subject alone.

[gr.king]

Set against the resources required to police the whole law intensively would be the savings that accrue from wiping out crime and it various costs, and once society's vermin began to realise that they could not get away with ANYTHING illegal the costs of necessary policing would fall. The cost of enforcement would be reduced further if the legal process were streamlined and transgressors denied umpteen "warnings", second chances, and opportunities to dodge or delay compliance while statutory process rumbles slowly along. Insistence upon immediate and total compliance with the law should be the norm whenever criminal activity or non-criminal disregard of statutory requirements is detected.

[hayfield]

I worked in the financial industry and was amazed that when money was stolen the banks failed to follow the trail from bank account to bank account.

 

Quite simply if money is taken from your account they know which account received it. All they need to do is in a case of fraud ask the bank which received it to return it, simple. Though it is quite likely that bank sent it on to another account at a different bank, which in turn sent it on to another account at a different bank, and this probably happened several times (I think its called layering). The one thing all these banks have in common is that they all have computer records and know from where the money came from and where it was sent to. The horrifying part is that the banking system just does not care. I asked my son in law who investigates fraud why and his thoughts is that the system is corrupt.

 

Providing us the public are willing to pick up the cost of fraud, there is no incentive in the system doing anything about it. The banks should be made responsible to recall any monies that have been taken dishonestly from the bank they sent it to. Very simple and would solve the problem over night, if foreign banks don't want to play ball then exclude them from the system. Not really rocket science, After the last banking debacle how many bankers did you see in court let alone jail ?

[BlackRat]

It is high time that the police were COMPELLED themselves by law to enforce the WHOLE of the law, at all times, and not just the bits that individual chief constables consider to be strategic priorities, politically acceptable, ethnically sensitive, or "for the greater good". The resources to enable this to be done should be provided, even if this has to be at the expense of various do-good or social engineering schemes.

And the system would be completely log jammed in no more than a few days.

 

Reality.

 

Unless of course you want to open a new box of C.P.S. lawyers.

 

It can take months to arrange a face to face meeting for serious offences, often having to travel in excess of 125 miles to do so

 

And did you know failing to stop following a RTC, NO MATTER HOW TRIVIAL OR MINOR, is actually a criminal offence, hundreds daily, most no hopers with no witnesses, littering, speeding, spitting, dogs in public not on leads, ..........obstructions, certain movements of livestock, etc etc etc

 

Think we would need to open that box of strategic reserve coppers!

[EddieB]

Sorry Black Rat, but that's why crime - both serious and petty is increasing. 

 

I'm sure there were those who objected to Mayor Guiliani's "broken windows" policy in New York on the grounds that there werre insufficient resources.  What did they find?  Start dealing with low-level vandalism and more serious crime went down also.  The same applies when police routinely stop cars without valid insurance or road tax - suddenly they find that they are apprehending suspects wanted for far more serious crimes.

 

Where there is a clear lead, it should be followed up.  In my case, obtaining and checking a phone number.would take a few minutes.  Someone has already done the leg work and presented the police with all but an open goal.  To build on this example, my suspicion is a youngster who lives nearby and has taken an opportunity that he felt had presented itself.  If I'm right, he gets away with this minor offence and is encouraged to try again - perhaps something bigger next time.  On the other hand, even if no charges are brought, he knows that the police are "on to him" and thinks very carefully before trying something again.

 

Without exception the friends I have in the force are passionate about their work and often frustrated by "the system" that seemingly allows petty criminals to get away.

[BlackRat]

Policing is simple.

 

The problem is everyone wants to complicate it, making an easy job more than difficult.

 

A good start would be everyone who witnesses something to come forward.

 

You would be amazed how many blind eyes are turned or its nothing to do with me or I don't want to get involved merchants there are.

 

Often the finest pillars in society.

 

And obtaining and checking a phone number takes more than a few minutes. It can, and sometimes does take weeks, as I can verify having had to do it several times this year already.

 

Eg someone is Involved in a serious collision and a witness says they see them on the phone. The phone has to be seized and exhibited, a statement taken from the witness and a statement from the officer handing it to me.

An exhibit label has to be compiled which everyone signs in chronological order.

I also have to provide evidence of continuity.

It is then entered onto Register E, the property other than found property index and placed in a sealed bag with all the pertinent information on it, again including continuity signatures.

I then have to spend about two hours completing a request for the phone to be analysed, to prove it was In Use despite eye witness evidence.

The phone company then charge ( up to about £750) to tell me about the phones usage.

I then need to send it off with more forms to another specialist company for downloading, as of course the data is needed as evidence. This takes several weeks and of course we need statements of both production and evidence of what was on the phone, or what exactly it was being used for at the time of the incident.

 

That's just one piece of evidence, which I have simplified, and failing to comply with any of the above will render the evidence, no matter how key, inadmissible in court.

 

Oh and obtaining the number has to be legal, and any enquiry re the phone has to have had the necessary data protection forms completed and forwarded either by post or emailed to the phone company, no forms definately no reply.

 

A recent court file I had to prepare had over 100 key pieces of evidence.

 

Yet what could be easier than just writing the comments of the witness in my notebook, and presenting that, but nope, like I said a simple job which everyone wants to complicate at a cost of course both in time, and more importantly, money.

 

But then money makes the world go around doesn't it!

[gr.king]

And the system would be completely log jammed in no more than a few days.

 

It can take months to arrange a face to face meeting for serious offences, often having to travel in excess of 125 miles to do so

 

And did you know failing to stop following a RTC, NO MATTER HOW TRIVIAL OR MINOR, is actually a criminal offence,

 

Well ware of the duty to stop following a collision thanks. The many motorists who seem to either not know such rules of the road or not to think that they are important or need be obeyed should never have passed their driving tests and should be promptly deprived of the entitlement to drive. If the law were properly streamlined to remove all of the waffle and dilly-dallying then offenders would not be able to "play" the system to create delays in order to evade justice.

[BlackRat]

You might be aware of your duty, I wasn't saying that, did you know it was a recordable crime, as opposed to a road traffic offence (most of which are NON recordable) and therefore has to comply with national standards of crime recording and then investigation?

 

The majority of forces now will not investigate these matters unless there is an identifiable offender and they are not crimes until detected.

 

Figure fiddling at its best!

 

If you want things streamlined, then complain to the CPS and the defence teams, it's they that have over complicated the whole thing!

[Ozexpatriate]

I'm sure there were those who objected to Mayor Guiliani's "broken windows" policy in New York on the grounds that there werre insufficient resources.  What did they find? 

Google 'stop and frisk'. The US has a constitutional amendment about search and seizures without probable cause - the fourth. This is a very contentious topic and due to considerations of politics I won't discuss this aspect further here.  In NY, the larger objection was not about resources, it was about racism, but let's not stray there.

[Ozexpatriate]

Petty crimes like theft (now including identity theft such as the ones illustrated in the OP) are nothing new to western society despite our constant experimenting with policing and punishment and/or welfare benefits to mitigate this all too human failing.

 

We've still not come up with an effective cure.

 

I come from a nation founded from a more benevolent attempt to address the problem than the Tyburn Tree.  Transportation anyone? It's not like things were any better in 'the good old days'.

[EddieB]

Policing is simple.

 

The problem is everyone wants to complicate it, making an easy job more than difficult.

 

 

A recent court file I had to prepare had over 100 key pieces of evidence.

 

 

Yes - if the end result is always to arrest, charge, bring to trial and add to our burgeoning prison population.  Some low-level crimes (and I include my own example as there was no financial loss) could be dealt with by issuing a warning to the perpetrator.

 

Same goes for things like dogs not on a lead.  Stop the owners and warn them and go on to something else.  Perhaps in so doing you might help to prevent a vicous mauling suffered by a friend of a friend's child.

 

Isn't that how policing used to be done? (Transportation aside!)

[phil-b259]

Yes - if the end result is always to arrest, charge, bring to trial and add to our burgeoning prison population. Some low-level crimes (and I include my own example as there was no financial loss) could be dealt with by issuing a warning to the perpetrator.

 

 

Isn't that how policing used to be done? (Transportation aside!)

It might well be how "it used to be done" but to assume that "it's how it used to be done = a better way of doing things that , is dangerous territory to be getting into, particularly when it comes to law. I appreciate that is sounds a rather over the top thing to say in relation to dogs on a lead for example, but very often under common law, decisions about little things can go on to have huge significance in more important cases and can easily lead to miscarriages of justice as occurred with several high profile cases in the 70s, 80s and 90s.

 

That's not to say things cannot be improved with respect to policing and crime handling of course - however contrary to what the Daily Mail brigade may wish people to believe there is no instantaneous / magic "fix" that will sort everything out.

 

From my perspective one of the best improvements we could make is impossible to achieve, namely getting rid of the no win no fee compensation chasing lawyers we have imported from America and who seem to be behind a whole raft of issues - not just the mostly spurious "banned by H&S" headlines. In fact I suspect a lot of Police reticence to just "have a word" with people these days stems from the ability of certain types to play the system and accuse said police force of racism / harassment, etc and sue for compensation.

 

Also in all this discussion there is a big danger that we are losing sight of the real issue here (i.e. the actions of the bank in the first place). The police can hardly be blamed for not perusing the case if the bank itself takes a "can't be bothered" stance when it comes to proactively engaging with the police in the first place. - (which may be because the bank know it's their security procedures are at fault. After all you would hardy expect the Police to be that bothered about a Wallet stolen from a car you had left unlocked would you?)

[Not Captain Kernow]

There is a very simple reason why the banks are not interested. They do not lose a penny from fraud. If you card is stolen / cloned etc, they simply deduct the transactions made from the retailer. The banks are very careful to ensure they never lose out!

[BlackRat]

For a caution the burden of proof has to be exactly the same, because it is 'an outcome of justice' which is recorded against a recordable crime.

 

If only it were so simple, and yes when I joined it was almost thus!

 

Why notT stand for police and crime commissioner?

 

The boys and girls in blue would love to have your ideas implemented!

 

And to clarify the Police don't deal with fraud, that's why you ring a different organisation now, in the same way we no longer deal with parking, noise offences or fly tipping and a raft of other things.

 

Luckily there are numerous companies circling at the mo, waiting for the govt to further privatise areas of policing so all is well as privatisation is always better, or so the mantra goes.

 

Am I glad I retired in June..........OHHHHHH YESSSSSS INDEEEDY!!!!

[Horsetan]

.....Why not stand for police and crime commissioner?....

 

What, and get accused of cronyism / corruption, etc.? Are you mad? 

[Raised On Steam]

I recently supplied Action Fraud with an address, email, phone number, voice recording and a lead to possible CCTV footage of the criminals and yet still got the dismissive 'we don't have enough evidence for an investigation' email. My bank were 'satisfied' as it's no skin off their nose. My energy comapny after trying to get me to take the loss finally relented and claimed their lost money back. Somewhere along the line the cost will come right back to us I'm sure.

 

Because people do most of their transactions 'virtually' (and sometimes there is no other option) these days we are sitting ducks for the scumbags. Across the board the only info needed to pass security checks are name, address, DOB and phone number/email. All easily obtainable for those who search. Passwords are usually optional and at the discretion of the person in the call centre. The only way my energy supplier knows it's really me on the phone is that I ASK THEM for the password hence prove it's me bacause I know there's a password. Confused yet?

 

Officialdom and organisations don't seem too bothered about yet another fraud but for some of us it's a big deal and a huge invasion of privacy. My bank account is now a token set up to pay my rent and I've gone back in time to stuffing what little money I have under my mattress I'm afraid!

[kevinlms]

There is a very simple reason why the banks are not interested. They do not lose a penny from fraud. If you card is stolen / cloned etc, they simply deduct the transactions made from the retailer. The banks are very careful to ensure they never lose out!

More likely its a tax deduction for them as a 'cost of doing business'.