Barclays....... A scammers choice of bank!!!

Barclays bank are up to their 'usual' professional selves AGAIN...... After being scammed by someone who has a Barclays account, they (Barclays) are totally passing-the-buck. Barclays bank are more than aware that the account the funds was paid into is fraudulent!! . After realising that I had been scammed and phoning the bank, the personnel on the phone immediately told me the funds I had transferred into the other Barclays customer account was NO longer in that account. It was almost immediately taken out (in cash....£2000.00) and that the name I used for the other person to make that transfer was NOT the name they have on their records as the account holder!!! Whaen I pushed for more information I was told that as I had made the transfer of funds via telephone banking that there was NOTHING Barclays could do, but that I as the person who is now out of pocket should report the 'crime.'

I was advised to visit my local branch and speak to my 'personal' bank advisor who MAY supply me with relevant details, I was also advised to report the matter to the local police.


My question is: Were Barclays fully aware of the fraudulent activity of the "benefactor's" account?
and why wasn't I warned when I literally spelled out the name of the so-called benefactor to the telephone banking personnel didn't that person query the name/names of the benefactor's details.
How is it possible for someone to withdraw a sum of money over what is over Barclays' £750 daily limit?
For someone to withdraw that amount you have to physically go into the bank and request that amount over the counter.................... Are Barclays as stringent as they claim?

I will be visiting my local branch in the morning to get whatever information I can out of my 'personal wanker'

It seems it is VERY easy for those with very little in the way of identification to open an account with Barclays, yet, a few years ago I tried to open an account with a £16.000.00 cheque and was turned down. It was only when this government insisted that EVERY British subject SHOULD have a bank account (basic) then I was allowed to open an account at the fraudsters bank of choice!!!

I'm sorry to hear that you are the victim of a scam. Can you post any of the scammer's information that you do have to warn others?

I understand your frustrations, however, Barclay's bank is not the scammer. Their bank was merely used by the scammers and no - Barclay's wouldn't have known right away that the account was fraudulent until someone reported it as so. It could also have been an innocent victim's bank account who unknowingly allowed a scammer to use their bank account and was a victim themselves (usually part of an employment scam or a romance scam) so in those cases they could have been a Barclay's customer for years. How is a bank to know who is a legitimate customer and who is not? Is Barclay's responsible because you chose to forward funds to another person you met through the internet?

Barclay's was simply doing it's job and you should follow all necessary steps they have advised you to take. Barclay's bank is not the only bank that this happens through. They are just one of many. And although it's sad and frustrating, not much can be done once the scammer takes the money runs. It is VERY important that you take all the steps you were advised to take in order to report this crime to the authorities, but it is a very slim chance that you will ever see your funds returned to you.

I hear what you are saying and I have heard of instances like this before, however, the fact that whoever was on the phone from the bank hinted to me in no uncertain terms that they suspected the account was fraudulent makes me wonder how long they knew about it. I am getting no answers from Barclays as to whether the account is still open. And by the way, I do suspect the same person is still active on the internet because they are on two other internet sites selling the same item. I'm a little weary of posting the person's bank details on the forum until I have been to the bank and gathered some more information.

As a matter of interest......... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... -scam.html

Welcome to Scamwarners F**k Barclays.

I am fairly unique to speak with regard to this issue but before mentioning why I'd ask how you'd feel about having your fingerprints taken before allowing you (or anyone else) to open a bank account and for that fingerprint database to be available to the police and authorities. There is no likelihood or pressure for this to happen but, from my knowledge, it' the only way this problem is going to be addressed. It will also put a block on many other criminal activities particularly various types of benefit fraud.

You probably aren't fully aware of how widespread fraud is using bank accounts opened purely to handle funds stolen by criminals. I could give you links to many news items and there was even one news report about a group of Australian victims pursuing a major UK bank in a class action suit, this time concerning fraudulent villa holidays.

I am fairly unique in that I spent my whole working life in banking before I retired and I also report bank accounts being used in fraud to get them closed down. In site of my background I don't have any special sympathy for banks and, I feel that these accounts are so numerous that some banks themselves are going to be taken for very large amounts themselves. My adage is that if you're kind enough to give a thief a place to stay, don't be foolish enough to believe he won't knick your silver.

I could go through the whys and wherefores of how this all came about, but that's boring and where we are now is the problem, and it is a very serious situation but one that isn't widely acknowledged. There are fundamental problems in no one properly addressing the problem. Presumably you were snagged on an 'ad site' and most of those have pitiful security, and one of my daily tasks is to spot and report fraudulent ads on one major uk ad site and I have a rolling thread here that has had in excess of 106,000 views and the scam ads I've spotted probably aren't far off that number. It consists of 62 pages. The second problem is the ease with which criminals can open bank accounts and I can only offer fingerprinting as the solution. Then, when scammers try to open another account they can be blocked immediately and, any other crime they're involved in can be picked up.

There is a point at which any organisation, if it becomes overloaded with criminal activity cannot itself avoid being associated with that fraud, and I for one wouldn't want an account where my fellow account holders are possibly criminals. It does make your own account more vulnerable to fraud, I can assure you.

There are two ways to deal with fraud, one way is to deal with it head on to stamp it out, and the other way is to suppress reports of it happening. My own opinion is that greater priority is being given to the second option.

Try reading this report from The Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/sep/13/barclays-account-passport-fraudsters?

Thank you for the welcome message. You cannot make an omelet without breaking eggs, right? That said, I think it is far too often a lot of financial institutions have taken the 'Let's bury our head in the sand' approach to this type of crime!! If none of us have NOTHING to hide we wouldn't kick up a fuss at being fingerprinted...............I know I wouldn't!! I've always tried to do the right thing, coming from a background of a law enforcement family (dad, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins) all being police officers with my dad leading a fraud squad, we (the children in the family) knew the law and stuck to it by the letter!!!


My sole aim in joining this site is to share my experience with others, and spare some other person the heartache of this type of despicable crime.

I agree with much of what is stated above and just wanted to clarify to the OP that most warners and other volunteers don't necessarily agree with how the banks operate when it comes to the fraud being done. Do most of us think it sucks? Pretty much. Do most of us think that banks could do more to protect people from fraud? Absolutely. But unfortunately, we are limited in what we can do, so we make the most of doing what we can. Just as Terrance said, we report accounts and there's baiters who's sole mission is to play along with scammers to get as many bank accounts closed down as they can.

Believe me, if anyone can understand your frustrations, the warners and the baiters can because of the amount they see on a daily basis.

If you are interested in helping with the cause and doing what you can to help prevent this from happening, I encourage you to stick around Scamwarners. If you're interested in doing more than we do here at Scamwarners, give our sister site, 419Eater.com a visit.

I did see your other thread under Auction scams, thank you for posting the information to warn other potential victims.

Hi Tim Atem, of course I am up for helping, I could have 'lurked' read what was posted here and slink away, but I am very happy to stick around and do whatever little I can to contribute towards the cause.

As you've raised the issue I'll highlight some of the fundamental problems that many people won't be aware of.

Fraud can be addressed by making stricter checks and introducing tighter procedures, which is costly or, by laying off the risk and blame on the victim/customer and I can provide examples of how banks and companies have managed to make the customer/consumer the loser by subtle changes in the law in recent times.

Taking an unusual example I was surprised when recently HM Land Registry set up a service to notify property owners when changes were made to entries on their register. Why should I bother because no sale or mortgage of my property can be effected without a signed document and I am not obligated in any way legally by a forged document ? The reason for this is that banks and mortgage companies want to use abbreviated procedures when handling mortgages and property sales but the result is that doing so makes them very vulnerable to fraud.

Outrageously I have seen reports where even when it is understood that the mortgage sale is fraudulent the bank/, mortgage company have still tried to take possession of the property.

Another wrinkle you possibly aren't aware of is the Faster Payments System which ostensibly makes the transmission of funds quicker but, the more beneficial effect to banks is that it has taken off them the responsibility to check payee names against account numbers on electronic payments. The problem is that this also makes fraud much easier as I can ask you to pay £8,000 to my sorting code and account number and use the name Admiral Nelson and it won't be picked up. More seriously we used to check foreign payments against lists of terrorist associated names but, if there is no obligation to quote the correct name related to an account number, that procedure is a waste of time.

Having said all this we do try to maintain good relations with ad sites and banks so that we can co-operate in getting fraudulent adverts and accounts used in fraud deleted as quickly as possible. In the next day or so "ll post up the last exchange of mail I had with a scammer leading to his disclosure of the bank account he's using which has been reported already.

Once it's indexed by Google it would be unwise for a bank to allow future payments to go through it. The trouble is that I suspect that these accounts exist in their thousands.

By coincidence in todays news reports of fraud here is an example of a case where opening up an account through identity fraud puts a bank itself at risk of losing a large amount of money.

http://www.residentiallandlord.co.uk/news/3954-couple-jailed-for-mortgage-fraud.html?

Couple jailed for mortgage fraud

On the face of it the bank appears to be at little risk in an era of rising house prices where it appears that the perpetrators have every intention of paying the mortgage(s). It is also ironic that the banks will do everything to ensure that those who commit this type of fraud against them get significant custodial sentences.

I am also gobsmacked by this

The couple were convicted under a previously unused section of the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act at Sheffield Crown Court.

The problem comes in the future when either interest rates rise and the mortgage may no longer be paid, or in the event of a future sale.

A couple have been issued with prison sentences after building a property empire using stolen ID.

If too much of a country's property is purchased in a similar manner it's easy to build a property empire but, as happened in Eire, in the event of an economic crisis, it can turn into a property market crash.

Banks should have a vested interest in preventing bank accounts being opened by fraudsters and, when it's by impersonation, it shouldn't happen because some of them will be used in fraud against banks and this is just one example of how it can be done.

TerranceBoyce, That made for interesting reading, thanks for sharing. I visited my local Barclays branch earlier today........ There is NOTHING they can do to help me and that includes telling me the REAL name of the person who owns the 'fraudulent' account or if the account was still open. Her advice to me was "Contact your local police, and for all we know this account may well be one that has already been flagged up. Barclays are committed to helping the police in anyway we can and all the information WILL be passed on to the police, which they may divulge to you." .....................


Then she went into her monologue of being 'careful' online. She did however, let her personal feelings get into the way of her professionalism, by saying that it would NOT be a bad thing to have each new customer that wants to open an account be fingerprinted and she feels that bank scams has risen in numbers from immigrants especially those from the Eastern Block etc.

So, now it's a trip to the local police........

The response you've received is predictable and understandable F**k Barclays, but in giving that response it is conceding that banks are either helpless to do anything about accounts being opened with them to commit fraud or they simply don't care because they aren't losing any money because of it. I suspect that if they were losing money they'd be considerably more proactive in dealing with the matter. That is short-sighted because these accounts will be used to commit fraud against anyone even banks themselves.

The example from the news story I referred to indicates that scammers haven't got the hang of the UK banking system. I suspect that they were surprised themselves to get an account so easily under an assumed name that they thought mortgage fraud would be equally easy, and it hardly appears to be a fraud if they're paying off the mortgage. The problem being that the deception will be discovered sooner or later and a property isn't portable the same way that cash is and simply lying on a mortgage application form is a criminal offence.

The true trick they would aim to pull off is to obtain a mortgage and 'scarper' with the money which, using the criminal skills they already have wouldn't be too difficult, they just need to know the procedures and the rewards are massive.

Any security system, bank or military post that doesn't have effective 'gatekeeper' security, doesn't have security at all. No matter how impressive any system appears, if an intruder can get through the front line, which in the case of banking is verifying an account, everyone down the line will rely on that first check to take the customer as being confirmed.

Another fundamental problem is that with so much modern commerce being handled online, it undermines the public confidence in both the internet and the banking system. I must have listed fraudulent adverts in the tens of thousands in the year I have been concentrating on just one major UK vehicle ad site, and other sites like eBay and Gumtree are no less affected by scam adverts.

Another use for these fraudulent bank accounts

http://www.localgov.co.uk/Council-recovers-100000-lost-to-scam/38676

http://www.newsrt.co.uk/news/rotherham-nhs-trust-loses-money-in-email-scam-1194687.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2599271/Academy-staff-school-posted-worst-GCSE-results-England-2012-lost-1m-simple-email-scam-replied-account-details.html

One thing that amuses me is that in the last two stories, because it doesn't explain how the money was lost understandably, the suggestion appears to be that simply divulging account details was enough to enable the frauds to happen. That's not so otherwise cheques would be outlawed because they contain all your bank details and a specimen of your signature.

Forgive my monologue but, with my background and involvement in anti scam forums, I take great interest in news reports of fraud and this very recent one highlights the difference between electronic and paper banking.

http://www.croydonadvertiser.co.uk/Police-arrest-boy-17-hunt-women-town-centre-bank/story-26891880-detail/story.html?

If the alleged perpetrators had got hold of the victims card details and pin number the likelihood is that the loss would be down to the victim. However, in spite of this comment in the article

,,,,,,giving them access to a customer's account - costing its rightful owner £120,000

In the circumstances described in the article, importantly access to the account being achieved on the basis of a forged signature, unless there is proof of collusion with the account holder, which is very unlikely, the loss will be down to the bank. In both cases the perpetrator needs full account details, but a paper transaction provides an account holder with greater protection.

Although banks might wish to make it the fault of an account holder simply because their account details have fallen into the hands of a fraudster, that doesn't make any sense as so many organisations hold those details from phone companies, public utilities, local government, mobile phone services and so on, and there have been many reports of their databases being compromised and I wouldn't expect that they are held under very strict security.

The downside for the alleged fraudsters in this case is, if the loss is down to the bank, the bank will pursue them relentlessly and do all it can to achieve custodial sentences. As you have found in your case, where you bear the loss, the banks appear indifferent if not obstructive.