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

[Raisinganiguana]

I’m watching Steph’s Packed Lunch and there’s a woman on there who sadly got romance scammed for £30k. Afterwards, the financial expert was really clear that if this happens to you, the banks have to give you your money back. He even said they can’t ‘weasel’ out of it.

I’m sorry for the lady, but why should everyone else pay for what is essentially someone choosing to give someone else money? We don’t pay people back if they gamble it away, so why do we demand it just because they’ve fallen for a story?

She wasn’t someone very old or vulnerable. She chose to send this man money.

btw the scammer’s story was ridiculous - and the man’s photos were actually of some super hot model - so how one falls for these is another thing….especially as there are back to back warnings everywhere and on every bloody programme nowadays.

AIBU that people need to take some responsibility?

Well i think the comparison is relevant if I am worrying about the morality of what the banks are spending ‘our money’ on and how it affects me.

I would rather them spend my money on the victims of romance fraud even if they were stupid than their boss’ bonuses.

I’m not angered by them spending a small amount on victims - but I am by the other ways they choose to spend my money. Just my opinion…

What about people who invest in fraudulent investment schemes because they have been convinced they will make loads of money? Should we just tell people they were not only stupid but also greedy, so don’t deserve their money back? How about people who let banks convince them to sign up to PPI schemes? They were all bloody stupid too, weren’t they? Let’s throw all the idiots to the wolves…

@FudgeSundae when it comes to housing or groceries or fuel bills- absolutely - romance scans- nope- that's common sense totally out the window

There may be some "extremely sophisticated scams out there" but the majority are not at all sophisticated. They're not complex. The romance scams are not sophisticated. The lottery/money laundering scams are not sophisticated the WhatsApp mum scam, the delivery notice, the text from your bank...none of them are sophisticated. The vast majority are the opposite of sophisticated and have been warned about a million times. People STILL willingly give their money away.

You trust them under coercion whilst lacking confidence in them. I feel the same way.

are allowed to tell you that they will not compensate you in your case because they think you are actually just stupid and only a stupid person would ever behave like you

isn’t that what happens if you get burgled when you’ve gone out and left your door unlocked or walk around with your mobile hanging out your pocket and it’s nicked? Those things might be a momentary lack of judgement. Pretending you’re in a 16 month relationship with a hot model you’ve never met isn’t a momentary lack of judgement is it? I’d rather refund the nicked mobile

news.sky.com/story/adults-aged-under-34-twice-as-likely-to-fall-victim-to-fraud-than-other-age-groups-survey-finds-12741799

Many scammers are sophisticated and take a multi-pronged approach. I know of someone, a widow, who during the first lockdown was persuaded to invest some money (I don’t know what in) and the chap contacting her was both very plausible and charming. After months and months she felt they had a real connection, and he was coming to see her, but covid etc always got in the way. It was called out by her her hairdresser as at her first appointment after one of the lockdowns finished, she was giddy with excitement. Hairdresser managed to contact the son (lady was in her 70’s) but she wouldn’t believe anyone, this chap was utterly lovely. In the end she lost £70,000 in “investments”, and once she finally realised it was all a scam she had a stroke and died.

Many of you will be delighted to know nothing was paid back.

It is theft and quite horrid. I’m sure an awful lot isn’t reported because of the shame and victim blaming.

Be cause banks should have adequate anti-fraud protection tien built into their apps and systems to prevent vulnerable people from being affected

But what do you do when the target insists on going ahead (as noted upthread) ?

If one of your parents got defrauded in this way and lost their life savings (and potentially your inheritance) I imagine you'd be glad that the bank returned the money.

Well, that’s just an idiotic comparison. With a romance scam, the criminal has spent months building a relationship of trust with their victim and breaking down their defences. They get into that person’s psyche in a very personal, humiliating, calculating way, gambling on the fact the person may well be too embarrassed ever to admit it, giving them free rein to move on to the next victim. They groom their victims, like people traffickers might well have done, or sex abusers. Do you also take this attitude to women who form relationships with men who then rape and humiliate them?

Preying on people’s understanding of themselves and their ability to trust anyone at all ever again is nothing like getting distracted and knowing you have done something that leaves you open to opportunists you knew not to trust in the first place because they never made any effort to convince you otherwise.

Judging others on the basis of a basic summary, when their reality was months of the criminal getting to know them, drip feeding a story to them, testing out what works on them, finding out their insecurities, learning all about their hopes and dreams, is just being crass and not even trying to understand why they might have ended up looking and behaving like an easily manipulated fool.

They groom their victims, like people traffickers might well have done, or sex abusers. Do you also take this attitude to women who form relationships with men who then rape and humiliate them?

All of that is awful but no-one expects a bank to be responsible for compensating those victims so why is a bank responsible for compensating the woman described here? In my experience banks go out of their way to warn people about possible scams when you try to make a payment on line. They are constantly telling customers never to give out bank details and passwords over the phone and OTP have made buying online safer than ever. Banks are simply the method by which the money gets to the scammer and they try pretty hard to make people stop and think before they make the payments.

A pp mentioned the compensation you can get if a company you've purchased from goes bust and you paid by credit card. I've never understood the logic of that either (and never used it).

Judging others on the basis of a basic summary, when their reality was months of the criminal getting to know them, drip feeding a story to them, testing out what works on them, finding out their insecurities, learning all about their hopes and dreams, is just being crass and not even trying to understand why they might have ended up looking and behaving like an easily manipulated fool.

That may well be true but I still don't see how it's the bank's fault.

Maybe if you get your card cloned and money taken out of it you could tell the bank that you don't need them to repay your account as it wasn't really their fault?

Or you could see that one of the few perks of loaning a bank your hard earned cash for them to make massive profits is the insurance you get if you're scammed, phished or cloned.

It took years to persuade banks to do a check that the account you're transferring money to belongs to the person it should.It's still not compulsory. Some banks don't do' and the accounts of their customers can't be checked. So you have occasions when you have transfer money even though the bank hasn't declared it a match.

If banks were more proactiv checking account number and name match, I might have more sympathy.

In her last few years, I exercised the PoA for my DMIL albeit with her DC/my DH's blessing. She was well past responding to anything sent via email, but might have been vulnerable to anything sent by first class post. And TBF, every time I paid the care home she lived in, NatWest asked me to consider whether the payment could be fraudulent, even though we paid two care homes (sequentially) for three years. I don't think she would have done anything worse than sign a direct debit in favour of a doggie charity for £5 monthly, but we all have to be very cautious. The first rule is, if it sounds wonderful (you're rich or you're loved) it's almost certainly a fraud.

Cloning is to do with a weakness in banking technology (it used to be because the card retained an unnecessary magnetic strip which could be copied) so damn right the bank are responsible for making sure I don't lose out (it's up to them if they want to pursue the thief, I wish they would) scamming or phishing require a customer's participation. I have sympathy with people who are caught out by maybe a slightly different font in an email address but the usual rules (like NEVER revealing passwords or PIN numbers) do tend to protect us from a lot. I have no sympathy for the woman described here because she clearly thought she knew better than the thousands of people who have been scammed before her.

I don't know if this will be helpful to anyone but last year DH and I moved our bank accounts to another bank. It's well-established and based in Sweden, but the customer service is a step up from the UK High Street banks. And it should be, the charges are higher too. But you have a named person, that you meet face to face, and a direct line. If you need anything sorted, a phone call is all it takes.

Do you also take this attitude to women who form relationships with men who then rape and humiliate them?

you’re confusing me? What attitude? My assertion that a bank isn’t to blame?

It allowed them to preach from their high horse whilst patting themselves on the back for being better than the posters they were arguing with. That speech was platitudinous pap and not the gold of nugget of wisdom they wanted to portray.

I've met dozens of kind idiots. And some very, very clever rogues.

No, your assertion you would rather refund a nicked mobile than someone who fell victim to romance fraud. Or did you not read your own post, despite it being quoted in full for you?

@Walkaround humour me. What’s your actual question here? Really plainly.

Romance fraud is one of the cruellest crimes I have come across.
The victims are groomed. There are so many emotions tied up in it. They have to cope with the shame of being scammed, mourning the relationship that never was, summon up the courage to report it and be judged for their actions. I don't begrudge the few victims that do get their money back.
Fraud is a much undereported crime. Fraudsters thrive on people judging the victims - it means they don't report it and there's even less chance of the scammers being caught. I choose to save my scorn for the criminals.