PC Scam Resulting In Bank Fraud - Advice Please

overkillxx on 13/03/2019 - 21:39
Last edited 14/03/2019 - 08:41 by 1 other user

Hi everyone.

Cam I please ask for some advice, I have just discovered my father has had his pc hacked and has also been tricked into buying into a bit coin scam.
He was tricked into transferring an initial amount of 40k. His machine I suspect had a key logger on it and his account details were captured and a further 360k was stolen from him. The bank launched a 6 month investigation and said the funds were approved by him to be transferred, we are disputing this, particularly as he is somewhat mentally compromised in his decision making due to a stroke 7* years ago.

I wish to get legal and cyber crime advice on how to challenge the bank and try to recoup some of the funds.
We are seeking to get further information about the case via the bank but in the meantime I want to get professional advice in how to approach this.

Does anyone have any advice on how to approach this situation based on their field of expertise or personal experience in this area?

Your advice would be greatly appreciated.

Financial

Comments

  • follow on 13/03/2019 - 22:19
    +4

    contact acorn

    • John Kimble on 14/03/2019 - 09:56
      +5

      Tracy Grimshaw would be more effective

    • adam on 14/03/2019 - 21:45
      +1

      Who will do nothing other than log it.

  • fantombloo on 13/03/2019 - 22:49
    +17

    but in the meantime I want to get professional advice in how to approach this.

    I think you're talking to the wrong professionals in this instance.

    • overkillxx on 14/03/2019 - 03:10

      I meant to say the immediate family is seeking professional legal advice, but any further suggestions and experiences on here are welcomed.

      • sharka on 14/03/2019 - 09:57

        Which bank is he with?

        • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 12:12

          OP said elsewhere it's CBA.

    • subywagon on 14/03/2019 - 11:38
      +7

      Gerry Harvey has no idea. We are all professionals on here. We give out expert dietary, exercise, career, taxation, insurance, investment, mechanical, career and legal advice plus much more. Some people amazingly earn in excess of 100k annually for being experts in there chosen fields for the day yet have time to spend hours Googling just to prove others wrong and get a couple of +votes.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2019 - 11:53
        +5

        My grammar advice is top notch! You misused 'there'.

        • subywagon on 14/03/2019 - 13:24

          haha wow I did too! My grammar is also normally top notch and what you'd expect from someone who earns in excess of $100K for their literary prowess.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2019 - 14:08
        +3

        You forgot clairvoyancy services.

        • iDroid on 14/03/2019 - 21:36
          +1

          Well if you were any good you'd have already known that!!

          • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2019 - 22:45
            +1

            @iDroid: I'm out of action until my crystal ball comes back from the workshop. It was leaking oil.

            • iDroid on 15/03/2019 - 10:38
              +1

              @[Deactivated]: Ahh, fair call. Seems mine is on the blink too or it would have shown me that.

              Back soon, off to the workshop to book it in!

              • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2019 - 10:43

                @iDroid: Lucky the industry is very honest and don't try to upsell your service.

  • deveshwar0 on 13/03/2019 - 23:16
    +18

    If you'd ever want to pay for real professional advice, now would be the time.

    • John Kimble on 14/03/2019 - 07:13
      +2

      But they have no money to pay them now

      • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 09:46
        +4

        Legalaid.

        • ihbh on 15/03/2019 - 20:49

          I skimmed what you wrote and first saw: lega - laid.

          • AlanHB on 16/03/2019 - 08:11

            @ihbh: That's actually how we lawyers talk when discussing our weekends.

            "Yeah man I got legal-laid! Pro-bono if you know what I'm saying!"
            (plentiful high-fives and subpoenas from the office floor)

  • whooah1979 on 13/03/2019 - 23:20

    we are disputing this

    How are you disputing the bank's findings?

    • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 09:46

      Probably can go to FOS? Don't like OP's chances though.

  • trustnoone on 13/03/2019 - 23:31

    Yeah, I feel this is in the Fraud Lawyer, Asset Recovery, Fraud Investigator realm of professionals.

    Might be worth checking out
    https://www.afp.gov.au/what-we-do/crime-types/cyber-crime/on… on a little what to do outline and
    https://www.moneysmart.gov.au/scams/recovering-your-losses for some info on what to do, who you might be able to report stuff to or talk to.

    But I imagine you might need a proper professional if you want something back.

  • Some Human on 13/03/2019 - 23:46
    -1

    Ouch.

  • Winston100s on 14/03/2019 - 00:00
    +10

    You regret investing your father's life savings and hoped that bit coin would eventually go over $100k, but now since it's been $5k for a long time and you paid $15k per btc, you are trying desperately to get your "investment" back? However if you really did get hacked and got your money stollen, i hope you recover the full amount you've lost. As others said, you need legal, not bargain advice.

    • overkillxx on 14/03/2019 - 11:17
      +1

      No.. Please read the original post. There was no "real" investment made & nothing that I was aware of. Noone was in the entire family.

  • altomic on 14/03/2019 - 00:08
    +8

    I want to get professional advice in how to approach this.

    approach professionals

  • Nutrino on 14/03/2019 - 06:28
    +1

    400k is alot of packets of chips. Damn.

  • Melb69 on 14/03/2019 - 08:02

    Firstly I am horrified that with a simple click the scammers had access to 40k and then 360k. As soon as the 40k withdrawal occurred a call to the bank to put it on hold should have been made. My dad had 2k taken, but bank refunded most of it. You can see why the scammers push so hard to get access to computers, as once they are in its like money for jam. I feel for your situation. It's only really through the bank that you can get the money back, but suspect its going to be a long road ahead of you. Good luck. Keep a record of all your discussions and post an update when you can on how you are going.

    • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 09:48
      +11

      Firstly I am horrified that with a simple click the scammers had access to 40k and then 360k.

      I very much doubt it was this simple - OP's dad needed to have done quite a lot to have lost so much.

  • pegaxs on 14/03/2019 - 09:00
    +9

    No 2 factor identification? If I send money to anyone from my bank account, I have to get a SMS code sent to my phone before it can be sent. Even if they try to change the phone number, I need the old phone number active to receive an SMS activation to change the number if I am not at the bank itself.

    If they are saying that he authorised this payment, he may have. I’m not saying he wasn’t scammed, but from the banks point of view, it may look like he sent the payments.

    But you need to seeks real professional help, not a bunch of guessing users on a bargains forum.

    • RM on 14/03/2019 - 09:23
      +4

      If OPs dad is not capable of taking decisions, why is he in charge of a large amount. He willfully didn't disclose to OP as they just found out and the investigations have already lasted over 6 months.

      Don't see how is the bank responsible for this, if anyone initiates and completes all id process for the transfer, why would the bank not follow it through.

      No point hanging here for guidance, seek legal advice, still doubt that it is bank's fault.

    • overkillxx on 14/03/2019 - 09:23

      Until I get power of attorney this week Im limited to the actual facts that transpired. My fathers cognitive ability and memory is quite bad. But from what I can ascertain he did indeed do the initial transaction of 40K and allowed that. But, I suspect that his login details were captured and all consecutive transactions were done fraudulently.

      Bank in question is Commonwealth. Maximum daily transaction limit is 100K (Assuming he authorized that). It was at least over 4 consecutive days this took place if it was 100K per hit. Im still piecing together all the details & until I get Power of Attorney its hard to understand what transpired with the Bank and my family. My father hid this from my mother & my sister. It was pure luck we found out through going through some paperwork the other day.

      I guess the whole point of this thread is trying to seek not legal advice from people here, rather, the appropriate legal avenue to take & if anyone has dealt with a situation like this before.

      A User online (trustnoone) has pointed out a few avenues, that is, "Fraud Lawyer, Asset Recovery, Fraud Investigator realm of professionals.". I appreciate that alot.

      • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 09:51
        +2

        Maximum daily transaction limit is 100K (Assuming he authorized that)

        Why did your father authorise a $100k limit when the only transaction you said he made was for $40k? I can't imagine that that was his normal daily limit, or any other reason he'd raise the limit so high.

        • overkillxx on 14/03/2019 - 10:57

          At this stage I don't have all the facts. Possibly you can raise the limit online & the scammer in question did just that. Possibly they made ALOT of smaller transactions over a period of time.. There are many unknowns. It is so so frustrating that I cannot even get clear answers from him as his cognitive ability and memory are quite bad and has been deteriorating dramatically over the last 12 months. It is a nightmare situation to be in. The money is there life savings & sadly it is likely its much more than 400K scammed. Untill I get total access to all his accounts & can ask the right questions directly to the bank I am relatively in the dark. Even with Both my Dad and Mum stating to the bank we want our son and daughter complete control does not suffice.. You need Power of Attorney documentation in place The stress the family is under right now is quite bad. My Father told noone as I guess he felt ashamed and guilty.

          I've reached out this morning to a fraud lawyer who in turn has referred me to investigators he uses to start things off.

          As I said, and will say again, if anybody can offer any valuable advise Its more than appreciated. I can only just take each day at a time with this & hope at least some funds can be recuperated.

          • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 11:58
            +2

            @overkillxx:

            Even with Both my Dad and Mum stating to the bank we want our son and daughter complete control does not suffice.. You need Power of Attorney documentation in place

            Unfortunately you should be able to see why a bank would not accept verbal, or even improperly drafted written, instructions on something as essential as who can access and control a customer's bank account.

            If your father's cognitive abilities are as bad as you say, you might want to look into applying for a guardianship over your father's finances (see more info here). That will be safer than just a Power of Attorney, because while a POA will allow you access and control, it won't take away access or control away from your father which lets him repeat what happened here.

            • Praeto on 16/03/2019 - 17:30

              @HighAndDry: The other problem will be that if his fathers cognitive abilities are already impaired, it makes things even more difficult. One of my grandparents signed POA / guardianship etc when she was diagnosed with alzheimer's.. Then when the documentation was shared with the bank, they called her and she said "no one should touch my money". It took another three months and finding someone at CBA that wasn't a moron before they got it sorted.

              • HighAndDry on 18/03/2019 - 09:55

                @Praeto:

                One of my grandparents signed POA / guardianship etc when she was diagnosed with alzheimer's.. Then when the documentation was shared with the bank, they called her and she said "no one should touch my money".

                This isn't really CBA's fault. If the customer signs a POA, they have to be cognitively competent (at the time of signing it) for it to be effective. This also applies to voluntary guardianships, though you can apply through the courts for one involuntarily.

                And again, I can understand why banks are going to be very careful when deciding who gets to access and control a customer's bank account.

                • Praeto on 18/03/2019 - 12:28

                  @HighAndDry: I can understand why they’re careful as well. The problem here is that all those papers were signed when she was still in the position to be signing them, and all the interaction with the bank happened a year later when she was no longer capable of doing anything by herself (and was actually living in assisted care). It essentially made all the documentation useless, because it relied on sign off from someone who was so far gone that we’d caught her brushing her hair with a knife.

                  It makes the entire process pointless if the bank can ignore it and decide that they need sign off again from someone that no longer has the capability to give it.

          • DarthAntz on 14/03/2019 - 12:04

            @overkillxx: I hope you have success. These instances are very common. In turn you'll be able to give advice on this topic better than the professionals here. I think the forums lately get a post about family members getting scammed every month or two. Happened to my father twice (microsoft callers) and he's now banned from picking up the phone.

        • iDroid on 14/03/2019 - 21:39

          Transaction limits are often bracketed, there may have been choices of 5k, 10k, 25k, 100k etc

      • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2019 - 10:55
        +2

        Out of interest, why didn't he have $360,000 invested somehow. Why was it sitting in an accessible transaction account?

        • overkillxx on 14/03/2019 - 11:01

          My dad is absolutely stubborn. His own brother is a financial adviser, has multiple degrees & is an absolute gun with finances. yet my father is too arrogant to listen to anyone.. I tried on multiple accounts to at least state to invest the money in a locked in high interest account etc.. But again.. If fell on death ears.. He listened to noone, yet was ok to listen to a complete stranger for financial advice who happened to be a scammer..

          • Baysew on 14/03/2019 - 11:35
            +9

            @overkillxx:

            My father hid this from my mother & my sister.
            father is too arrogant to listen to anyone
            His own brother is a financial adviser

            Whilst the wheels are turning on the loss of the money, I would not lose focus on the effect all this is having on the family. Seek professional advice in dealing with these family issues. I would be very concerned about how your father feels.

          • digitalbargain on 14/03/2019 - 18:15
            -4

            @overkillxx:

            tried on multiple accounts to at least state to invest the money in a locked in high interest account etc.. But again.. If fell on death ears.. He listened to noone, yet was ok to listen to a complete stranger for financial advice who happened to be a scammer..

            Yes.. sadly, a high yield $80k BMW would have been a safer investment vehicle in this instance

          • ashpete02 on 14/03/2019 - 21:15
            +2

            @overkillxx: Based on this information I'd say he go sort his own problem out, completely serves himself right…. this whole scenario seems so hard to believe, if someone with this much money this accessible, so easily connable, in this day and age (irrespective of his own age!)… well…. stupidity…… he must have, or want to have a hell of a lot more money if you're lawyering up!

      • stumo on 15/03/2019 - 11:10
        +4

        My father hid this from my mother & my sister. It was pure luck we found out through going through some paperwork the other day.

        Does not compute: How did the bank do a 6 month investigation if you only found out the other day?

        • dengziyi on 16/03/2019 - 10:05
          +1

          Perhaps his dad reported it

    • chriise on 14/03/2019 - 16:26
      +1

      SMS 2-factor authentication can be compromised by a scammer taking control of your number, not changing your number. They can set up a new SIM and transfer the number. Although it's certainly safer than no 2FA, using something like Google Authenticator is even safer.

      • pegaxs on 14/03/2019 - 16:59
        +2

        I get that that is a possibility, but not very likely. They would need access to all of your details. They would need to know your phone number for a start, then on with all your other details.

        I certainly think that OP's father was definitely at risk of giving this information out if they are not 100% in control of their faculties. So, in this case, it's very plausible.

  • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2019 - 09:03
    +13

    Most banks don't allow online transactions of that size, with daily limits.

    • brad1-8tsi on 14/03/2019 - 09:54
      +2

      Mine is $10k max. Any more than that and I have to send them a secure email and then they call me and ask lots of security questions.

      If I was the OP I would look into what the CBAs procedure is to ensure it was followed to the letter.

      • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 09:58
        +5

        Before that, I think OP needs to get the full story from the father.

        • ssyl9 on 14/03/2019 - 19:12
          +2

          agreed.. something seems fishy as even the initial 40k transfer will need a lot of hoop jumping and authentication to even happen

          let alone a 360k transfer.. I believe such transfers are probably not even possible unless being IDed

          The father must have done something that he is not telling (or forgot)

      • macrocephalic on 14/03/2019 - 16:41

        Mine is only $5k!

    • drfuzzy on 14/03/2019 - 20:22

      You can contact the bank and have that increased. WBC increased mine to $500k/day. Other banks are more stingy.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2019 - 20:46
        +1

        You 'can', but that makes you a sophisticated user that takes responsibility for your own security responsibilities and precautions.

      • syousef on 15/03/2019 - 07:39

        There are lots of things you can do that you shouldn't. You can also stab yourself in the eye with a fork. But I wouldn't recommend it.

    • bigticket on 14/03/2019 - 20:59

      Citibank. $100k/day

  • brad1-8tsi on 14/03/2019 - 09:52
    +1

    Have you been to the state police?

    They have a cyber-crimes unit. You won't get a lot of joy out of them as they spend most of their time working with the sex crimes unit trying to track paedophiles but the police are a compulsory starting point. Possibly / maybe the Federals will be the next step if the criminals emanated from O/S.

    Good luck. My ex had some issues with anonymous cyber-bullying / harassment 10 years back and we had the run-around with State & Federal police, Human Rights Commission and several other useless government departments and agencies. Her employer spent $20k+ on private resources trying to track the bugger but nothing ever came of it.

  • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 10:05
    +4

    I find some parts of your story curious. Not saying you're lying, but:

    He was tricked into transferring an initial amount of 40k. His machine I suspect had a key logger on it and his account details were captured and a further 360k was stolen from him. The bank launched a 6 month investigation and said the funds were approved by him to be transferred, we are disputing this, particularly as he is somewhat mentally compromised in his decision making due to a stroke 7* years ago.

    If $360k were indeed straight-out stolen from him, as opposed to your father being tricked into transferring those funds, the fact that he's mentally compromised would not matter because he wouldn't have been involved - it would be a direct cybercrime. Only if he was scammed or tricked into actually making those transfers himself would his cognitive impairment be relevant.

    Though to be fair, even if he was cognitively impaired, that's not the bank's problem. They're not in the business of ascertaining the mental competence of their customers - that's for the customer, their family, and doctors to decide, and unless the customer is under a guardianship where someone else has control of their finances, a bank should assume that every customer is mentally competent to do so - it's the customer's money after all, a bank can't unilaterally take away the customer's right to deal with their own money.

    • overkillxx on 14/03/2019 - 11:14

      Im aware that my father being mentally compromised won't improve the final outcome. But its just a fact.. The only thing I am quite sure of is that there isn't any possibility he would have intended to spend more than 40K on this dodgy venture with the scammer. Dad is quite stingy in his nature. Attributed to the fact he worked hard for his money. He has stated to me repeatedly it was only 40K he wanted to invest. Once he realized 400K was missing he was immediately onto the bank..

      I am "Hoping" that all the consecutive transactions done fradulently weren't done from his PC, rather, they were done from the scammers PC located in another state/county and that those IP's details are recorded. Then I would hope that if its coming from another location proving Dad wasn't the one who made them will be easier. Further to this The Fraud Lawyer has already given me contact details for people to start gathering evidence.. One will dissect his laptop and prepare evidence accordingly from it.

      I really hope and Prey that at least some of the funds can be recuperated.

      • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2019 - 11:25
        +1

        It gets complicated as remote desktop software is a common technique for online fraud. Your dad's PC and IP might well be the same ones used as if he did it himself knowingly. Plenty of the telephone scammers from a few years ago were all about trying to get remote desktop software onto people's computers.

        • BartholemewH on 15/03/2019 - 10:07
          +1

          My relative nearly fell for this but my sister was there and rang me while the conversation with the scammer was unfolding. My relative did not believe me over 'Microsoft' until I said 'I bought that laptop, if you allow this scammer access to it I'm going to drive over there and crush it (literally)' . I was pretty furious by that point.

    • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2019 - 11:32
      +3

      Though to be fair, even if he was cognitively impaired, that's not the bank's problem.

      This is the first thing that came to mind when I read the post.

      Also, OP doesn't have the full story.

      • callum9999 on 16/03/2019 - 12:11

        While it may not be their legal obligation, there certainly is a moral obligation to try and look after their more vulnerable customers. Even supermarkets do it - I've seen cashiers question older people buying iTunes cards many times in case they were paying off scammers. Looking after others is a basic moral duty.

        Which is different to saying they should cover the cost of these scams - they shouldn't.

  • garetz on 14/03/2019 - 11:18
    +1

    Sounds like your father gave permission to withdraw 100k a day, there is no way a bank would allow that without account authorisation. It seems like you are missing alot of information here. Go through his emails and communications to see what you are missing. Also contact the bank and get records of all communcation between your father and the bank. Get as much information as you possibly can, it definitely cant hurt.

    • overkillxx on 14/03/2019 - 11:54
      +1

      Doing that..

      Key is to prove that the consecutive transactions were fraudulent.. I believe the first transaction however Dad did authorize.. Whether it was 100k or 40K or less is not clear.. As it was then an authorized transaction, any consecutive transaction would not need authroizaion, just account login details.. I HOPE that those consecutive transactions came from another IP address than his PC & that information is logged..

      Interestingly enough I spoke to a Fraud investigator. He stated clearly that even if the Bank could see the first transaction was from his IP address & every consecutive transaction was not, they will state they cannot reimburse. That will be there initial stance.. But they will have a huge challenge trying to fight an argument that it was Dad making a transfer from overseas (Based on IP) when he is in Australia at the time.

      Early days. And along way ahead.. Dads PC is now going to a forensic specialist for evidence gathering.

      • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 12:18
        +1

        He stated clearly that even if the Bank could see the first transaction was from his IP address & every consecutive transaction was not, they will state they cannot reimburse. That will be there initial stance.. But they will have a huge challenge trying to fight an argument that it was Dad making a transfer from overseas (Based on IP) when he is in Australia at the time.

        They don't have to argue it at all. Whoever scammed your father either tricked him into transferring the amounts, or tricked him into giving them access to his account. In both cases, it's not the bank's fault - they won't need to "reimburse" anything because they didn't transfer the money and they didn't receive the money.

        They can either:

        1. Help you try and recover the money from the people who took it, OR
        2. Make an ex gratia payment to your father.

        But they're not obligated to give your father money, because they didn't take his money.

        Also, this may be hard to hear, but I know that forensic IT specialists aren't cheap. At some point, you're going to have to do a cost-benefit on how likely it is to recover the money (again, this would be from the scammers and not the bank because the bank didn't take any money), versus the cost of trying to recover it. You said earlier that:

        Possibly they made ALOT of smaller transactions over a period of time.

        The way bank transfers work, generally it's extremely hard to track down and/or recover money that's transferred more than a fairly short time ago.

        • garetz on 14/03/2019 - 14:15
          +2

          Not entirely the case, the bank has a fiduciary responsibility to make sure your account was accessed and the transfer was authorized, for someone to access my account to transfer over 5k requires my written approval, them transferring 100k would look like suspicious behavior, the bank should of contacted the account holder and put the transfer on hold if it was unusual, as would of my bank.

          There are protections in place to prevent this kind of thing, and if the bank did not follow those protections to the letter then they are responsible.

          • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 14:24

            @garetz: The bank offers security features as a convenience and to reduce the amount of drama they have to deal with. None of it is a "fiduciary duty" of any kind. So far as the bank is concerned, you're not supposed to give out your account login details, your PIN, or any other method of accessing your account. That's how they "make sure your account was accessed and the transfer was authorized".

            Also: "would've".

            • garetz on 14/03/2019 - 14:36
              -7

              @HighAndDry: being a grammar nazi is a calling for those few who cannot help themselves, so i purposefully do it to see who corrects me, congratulations on being an ass.

              All banks have a fiduciary duty to minimize fraudulent activity, depends on their guidelines and what steps they take. Since op doesnt mention which financial institution they are dealing with, i cannot make assumptions, however most banks have guidelines in effects and preventative measures.

              • Baysew on 14/03/2019 - 14:50
                +3

                @garetz:

                Since op doesnt (sic) mention which financial institution they are dealing with

                Bank in question is Commonwealth.

                What's the transfer limit in NetBank?

                The maximum limits you can apply online are:

                Transfer to unlinked accounts*: $20,000
                BPAY (bill payment): $100,000
                International Money Transfer (IMT): $2,000

                and

                Increasing your daily limits may increase your liability for unauthorised transactions.

              • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2019 - 14:53
                +1

                @garetz:

                so i purposefully do it to see who corrects me, congratulations on being an ass.

                ;) Sure.

                All banks have a fiduciary duty to minimize fraudulent activity, depends on their guidelines and what steps they take.

                "your PIN, or any other method of accessing" and security codes, SMS verification , continued vigilance against phishing…

              • HighAndDry on 14/03/2019 - 15:08
                +1

                @garetz:

                so i purposefully do it to see who corrects me

                Has anyone believed this ever?

                All banks have a fiduciary duty to minimize fraudulent activity

                I'm still not convinced you know what "fiduciary duty" actually means. In any case, you still don't have an argument for why you think CBA has breached any such duty - it's OP's father who authorised a $100k daily withdrawal limit, it was OP's father who authorised the first $40k transfer, and we don't even know that it wasn't OP's father who personally transferred the rest but even if he didn't, it was OP's father who deliberately or negligently, gave a third party access to his CBA account.

                Banks aren't in the business of checking their customer's mental capacity to make decisions, and they're not in the business of preventing their customers from making bad financial decisions.

              • [Deactivated] on 14/03/2019 - 15:38
                +2

                @garetz: You meant purposely, not purposefully.

        • brad1-8tsi on 15/03/2019 - 09:37

          This is why banks are so keen to phase out cheques. A cheque is "guaranteed" by the bank whereas the banks are under no legal requirement to guarantee electronic payments or re-imburse fraudulent payments. They do so at the moment to make us believe electronic payments are foolproof and to try and make cheques redundant.

          I have a mate who is a Senior partner in a prominent Sydney law firm and they still pay everything by cheque.

  • letters numbers on 14/03/2019 - 17:13
    +2

    I agree with others in the sense you're not going to get great quality advice from a forum of people who don't know the situation, more so given you don't have a full understanding of the picture either.

    Having said that, in a somewhat similar situation, an elderly relative ended up getting cleaned out about $40k+ (possibly more, can’t recall) over several months via cash withdrawals out of an ATM.

    The withdrawals amounts were variable, relatively low and at an ATM that wasn't covered by any surveillance cameras. Our guess is one of his carers came across a debit card and maybe the PIN mailer or got if off old mate, who suffered from dementia, and went to town. It wasn’t a sophisticated scam, but they knew what they were doing.

    Long story short, there was a lot of back and forth but after beginning a process of going to the financial ombudsman (now AFCA https://www.afca.org.au/) the bank ended up goodwilling the total amount back – which I was totally surprised by.

    • Jugganautx on 14/03/2019 - 19:25

      Annnnnnd they didnt disable thw cards on the account why…. i call bs lol

  • zooter on 14/03/2019 - 17:18

    seriously 40K and 360K? Have you added an extra 0 at the end?

    • Milk tea on 15/03/2019 - 23:13

      Nuh. The 360k was split into smaller withdrawals across a few days as op has stated in some of the comments

  • pformag on 14/03/2019 - 17:29
    +5

    I can see this happening. At work, one of the accounts opened a scam email (even though we have Cisco endpoints), the next day 35k went out of one of the business accounts. We only found out that it went, because the scammers sent the 35k to an electrician that we used a couple of years ago(this is how they get away with the SMS, because it was an existing payee), and sent them an email (ghosted our accounts email) stating that we accidentally sent the 35k, if they can transfer it to another account, which was not our business account. Luckily the electrician thought it was a scam odd and contacted us, and we got it all sorted.

  • dumvamp on 14/03/2019 - 18:29
    +9

    We had an amazing experience with CBA. Not quite the same as OP unfortunately, but we unknowingly had a Direct Debit set up against *our accounts. (more info later)

    Someone magically placed a DD against my wifes account for $1. Bank authorised it and cleared it. No approval was ever given or required apparently.

    Apparently that was all that was required for someone to then access her account, transfer 4x $2k to our sons linked account and then DD it from there over a few days. Again, no checks and balances ever required.

    After discovering it and during the ensuing calls to the bank…

    they first said there was no error

    they suggested we had done it

    they suggested we had just forgotten we did it

    they informed us no paperwork was available to show the approval for the DD

    they informed us they didn't need us to approve a DD

    And….

    (the more info part)
    My most favourite one however was to tell us, that we should talk to our son and suggested he had approved the transfers, or funnelled the money out himself.

    I asked for a senior manager at this point and was told one had been listening in and was in agreement with everything thing that was said, so I asked 3 simple questions….

    1 Are external transactions allowed on that linked account in my sons name?

    2 how old do u need to be to authorise transfers on said account

    3 how old is my son

    The very proud manager told us in no uncertain terms… "NO external transactions, oh um, and you must be 18 years old, and….. Ah, I, ummm he's 2 years old"

    So at this point I simply asked when would my money be refunded, and at what point did their fraud department actually bother doing it job.

    It still took 8 weeks to sort out, at which point they put the money bank into the now closed accounts (you know the one it was originally stolen from), reactivated the account with the old password, and left it at that.

    They didn't even bother to tell us that had happened,
    Then they told us that they had finally requested the other bank to provide the DD paperwork, which was completely blank save our account number,
    And to top it off they told us it was not part of their procedure to check incoming DD's until an issue was raised, it was also not policy to contact the account owner to let them know of any outcomes.

    We closed all our accounts, moved to a different bank and haven't looked bank since.

    CBA. CAN'T BE A**ED.

  • T1OOO on 14/03/2019 - 18:42
    +1

    This is why u need 2 factor authentication. Sms. Too late.

    • pformag on 15/03/2019 - 10:41
      +1

      With Westpac, you can only have 2 factor Auth with new payees. I suspect the 1st 40K was a legitimate send of money, the rest could be fraudulent.

  • drprox on 14/03/2019 - 19:09
    +1

    I don't understand why people ever think the bank should be liable here. Is it because they're big and make lots of money? The bank undertook an investigation and the reality is if the funds left your father's bank for another they have no control over them.

  • DiscoJango on 14/03/2019 - 19:11
    +1

    im surprised the amount of mentally impaired individuals out there who have full access to their bank accounts. whats the wife doing allowing her husband full access to $400k

    • solidussnake on 14/03/2019 - 20:00
      +2

      Shes probably also got $400k but hasn't told the husband 😂🤣

      • John Kimble on 14/03/2019 - 20:10

        Maybe he's a widower or divorced?

    • [Deactivated] on 15/03/2019 - 18:53
      +1

      Convincing someone who does not believe they are mentally impaired to voluntarily give up freedoms due to their mental impairment is an incredibly difficult task. Sometimes it's just not possible to win.

      IF the OP is telling the truth, this might just be a $400,000 lesson that the mentally impaired person may, or may not learn from.

  • Lucky Luke on 14/03/2019 - 21:08
    +2

    From a legal perspective, the issue with online banking is that the bank and their operators are not involved in an online banking transaction. In my experience, the bank will always deny accountability at first contact when it is an online transaction that is in question.
    If the bank has completed an investigation over six months, they will have confirmed that they're legally not accountable for the loss. This is what these "investigations" are, an assessment as to legal accountability - if the bank hasn't followed legislative procedure correctly, they may become liable for the loss. In which case, they take steps to resolve the issue, agree to an amount payable, have you sign a non-disclosure agreement, and move on.
    I would suggest your only steps left are the Financial Services Ombudsman, and Free Legal Advice.
    The work 'hacked' bothers me, because its a convenient way to deny responsibility. I have seen this scam before, and unfortunately the perpetrators target the elderly. Without knowing specific details, I would suggest that the perpetrators would have offered to help your dad make the second payment, logged in via remote desktop, had him log in to internet banking, then actioning the transfer themselves. This is how the bank's avoid responsibility in these cases, their 'fraud guarantee' doesn't apply if the user participates in authorizing the transfer.
    You're limited in the options you have left - go to the police if you haven't already, potentially look in to victims of crime compensation. It won't be an amount anywhere near the loss, but it will be something. Goodluck!

  • Leeroy Jenkins on 14/03/2019 - 21:09
    +4

    This is not the place for advice.

  • lachhelix on 14/03/2019 - 21:25
    +2

    Yeah I'd be going to straight to a lawyer - this is a huge amount of money to be asking a random internet forum for advice

  • peterpeterpumpkin on 15/03/2019 - 09:13
    +1

    Sorry to change topics, but this is a classical symptom of cognitive deterioration that can bring about all sorts of problems to family harmony in the future. People in the early stages of dementia can be very deceptive, especially if you only ever observe them in the same routine. As stated above, you should be looking at guardianship rather than just a power of attorney for both financial and health/medical concerns. Or if you have a "difficult" family, transition to guardianship with the help of a lawyer that specialises in that area. You do NOT want to wait until there's family conflict or an external inquiry (from a bank, government body, care agency etc) that triggers a guardianship request once your dad is diagnosed as non compos mentis.

    It's an issue rarely discussed openly, but without elaborating, it brings out the worst in people.

  • andyken on 15/03/2019 - 10:28

    I think your dad hide something, hack and has been scam (trust someone but action with your own will) is 2 different thing.

    • sghetti on 15/03/2019 - 14:19
      +1

      It can be social engineering too. The most common way for people to be scammed now is to have them willingly hand funds over. Often through their own internet banking. Once banks work out that they authorised the transaction themselves and processed it willingly, they often wipe their hands of it. The bad actors often get away with it scott free unless the victim follows it up with police reports etc. Given they most likely won't see the funds back anyway, people often give up on pursuing it.

      There's only so much security that can be put in place before people need to use their own critical thinking when a scam is presented to them. They're often of the disguise of unbelievable returns or time sensitive, so people rush and don't take a step back to think about it more, leading to mistakes or forgoing due diligence.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join