Why should we all pay for those who’ve been scammed?

Worked out that the programme was You and Yours - https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001rq5h

Worth a listen.

Maybe there should be an IQ test for anyone seeking to open a bank account.

I caught part of an interesting programme on R4 today about "magic spell" scams.

In a world of magic words, it seems quite plausible.

I caught part of an interesting programme on R4 today about "magic spell" scams. The example they give was that of a woman who had been convinced that criminals had infiltrated her local branch of her Building Society and that, to protect her money, she must take out large sums of cash and put it into an envelope and post it to someone totally unknown to her to look after them. Part of the scam was preparing her for the fact that someone "pretending" to be from the BS's fraud department might contact her and convincing her that, if they did, she had to lie about it. The BS noticed that large sums of cash were being withdrawn and duly contacted her, and she duly lied about it. Fortunately she was a bad liar, and the investigator was very persistent and eventually got through to her that he was genuine and she really was being scammed, whereupon she was mortified both that she'd been taken in but also that she had lied.

Obviously it looks as if you would have to be totally naive to accept a story like that, but the person they were interviewing said that the techniques professional scam artists use are extremely sophisticated, and uncannily similar to the practices of people who groom vulnerable people in order to abuse them, and people who go in for coercive control. We know only too well how many people get sucked in by that sort of thing, so I wouldn't be too dismissive of people who fall for scams. We would never say that the grooming victim deserves to be abused, so why do some people in effect say that the scam victim deserves to be defrauded?

I tried to transfer some money (£10,000) from my bank account to another bank. Trying to make the transaction I was asked repeatedly if I had been asked to transfer this money, I was also asked repeatedly if I was sure I wanted to transfer the money. The bank then stopped my account and asked me to telephone them. I had to go through a whole lot of security questions as to why I wanted to transfer the money, was I sure I knew who I was transferring the money to etc. At the time I was pretty annoyed as it was my money. But I realised it was for my protection. If after all of this I was still being scammed then I think it would be my own fault. Some of these women who think they are being talked to by a handsome young or middle aged man probably saying he is in the US army a doctor etc. should take a look in the mirror and think why the hell would a good looking younger doctor want me. I know I would.

I agree. I mean banks should 100% cover stolen cards, cloned cards etc as that theft.
however someone willingly transferring money to a stranger…. I wouldn’t expect that to be covered.

Well yes, I know, but there’s a a tension with banking, as it’s also a social good. One we can’t function without. So banks have to be mindful of that as well as grasping for every penny of profit. Hence regulations etc.

There’s making profit fairly and there’s fleecing people or treating your customers unfairly.

I was just chuckling at the idea the banks would use any profit to ease the burdens of their customers, if they didn’t have to! As you so rightly point out, pigs would fly sooner.

I never thought I’d be caught out, but I was. Wasn’t a romance scam. Never got a penny back, nor did I expect to.

Well, I'm always pleased to see when banks recompense people who have been scammed.

You never know, one day it might happen to you. Some of these scammers are so convincing.

Some people are more vulnerable than others - maybe very lonely or with mental health issues or learning difficulties.

Speaking as a bank shareholder, the more that is "creamed off" as you put it for shareholders the better IMO.

Remember under Company law, a company's first duty is to its shareholders not its customers.

@Raisinganiguana it’s 30k, lighten up. Do you have any idea how small that amount is to a bank?

Perhaps you should listen to Radio 4 File on Four this evening investigating scams and fraud and how highly intelligent individuals are conned into push payment fraud and the psychological’ spell’ exerted by very clever fraudsters.
Some banks are signed up to compensating victims. The programme dealt with the devastating effects resulting in some cases suicide.
The incidence of fraud is now enormous because of lack of regulations. The uk is known as the money laundering capital of the world. I wouldn’t be so judgemental- it will happen to you OP

Even young and intelligent people can be duped, manipulated, scared, coerced into believing things that aren’t true.
I think your irritation is misplaced, be irritated by the people who run these scams not the people who fall for them.
I would rather live in a society that helps those in need regardless of what that need is or how they got there than one who tells people ‘gutted your fault’

Yet many people do stupid things, like trusting Internet randoms, not reading their bank statements closely and getting pregnant with unreliable men. Don't be too smug, we can all have lapses of judgement, and some may be seriously bad news.

people don’t actually believe they are stupid

, because any savings made would definitelybe given back to customers, instead of creamed off for shareholders…..

shareholders are people too, and rely on profit to survive. However my take on the refund thing is that in days gone by, pre Internet banking, you had to go along to the bank and pre arrange large withdrawals, now its a couple of button presses and you can send money anywhere.

That banks have to refund, encourages them to put in as many safeguards as they can and cooperate with investigations. It also sort of balances out this ease of scam compared to previous in person transactions.

But do people have to have some self responsibility, yes they do, but maybe the refund should be minus 20% if not a vulnerable person. That to me would seem fairer.

The powers that be appear to have a better understanding of human psychology than the randoms of Mumsnet on this one, then.

Actually this is not always correct. If a gambling establishment failed to identify gambling addictions or the person's affordability then yes they too can be forced to pay back.

I have never seen any evidence that people with “computer science degrees” are kidnapped for these scams. They don’t require any particular expertise.

and the bank nonsense is a silly question- banks just transfer to the next account in line. It’s very difficult now to open a bank account in most countries in your own name- never mind “multiple aliases who don’t exist”. And “tax havens” are just countries with lower tax rates - many have more stringent money laundering regulations than the uk (I’ve worked in finance in several). So in short, there’s no truth in what you say.

I agree, I hadn't thought about it from that angle, but yes. So many people lose money through no fault of their own and never see it again, but people who lose money due to their own foolishness are entitled to be refunded?? That is just wrong.

I tend to agree with this. Some scams are very sophisticated, and anyone could be fooled, but in a case such as this it is quite clearly a ruse to get money, and the people involved often forge ahead with giving the money, despite warnings from others.

I had a friend who this could easily have happened to, and it only didn't because she had no money - and funnily enough this wonderful, wealthy, good looking, man disappeared as soon as he realised this. We repeatedly told her to be careful, but would she listen?

If I had a gambling issue, or a drug problem, would the banks reimburse me any money I spent on my habit? People do have to take some responsibilty for their choices. I'm sure I read about a case (not in the UK) recently where someone had been scammed by men promising romance for either the second or third time and was not happy that the bank refused to refund her. Where does it end?

To be honest, I agree with you in a lot of cases OP. There's so much education out there and so much friction put into payment journeys that I find it unbelievable that people don't stop and think.

Unfortunately with the new mandatory reimbursement code coming in, it's only going to get worse because banks are going to be forced to reimburse every Tom, Dick and Harry even if they did blithely ignore multiple warnings. Including warnings from branch staff for all those who like to go on about that.

There is going to be a clause to not refund "gross negligence" however and I'd rather hope romance scams might come under that.

I don’t begrudge the victims having their money back, but this should extend to other types of fraud, like scamming builders or rental scams.

I’m not sure whether they should be paid back really you can sometimes feel for them, I love watching things like this though I can’t believe how daft people can be. Even if I’d met a real person and his dog had a big vet bill I wouldn’t be paying lol 😂