On The Hook For $174K Fraud Loss ! :-( | Page 2 | Your stories | Discussion forum

Pythagoras said

I agree. If a bank clears a fraudulent cheque that was deposited in the account without the owner's knowledge, the responsibility lies with the bank, not the account owner.  

Totally agreed. Access Credit Union did the right thing to reimburse the victim while Steinbach Credit Union denied responsibility and blamed the victim.

smayer97 said
This!

People are lulled into believing that SMS 2FA is about security... it is not. It is about tying your activity to your phone for better isolation and identification linked to a more unique identifier, your cell #. It is about tracking.

Consider using your computer instead. Not perfrect but more control, more options to protect yourself, less vulnerability.  

What people are lulled into believing is that their virus protection will keep them safe. I use a tablet dedicated for online banking and phone for verification. I would not use my computer for banking.

mordko said
This reminds me to close accounts I am not using. Having accounts with $10 balances carries outsized risks.  

Wise recommendation. Also, logging into each of accounts (that allow deposits by cheque) daily to check their balance will defeat this type of fraud.
Do not rely on email notifications of account balance change, if your computer was compromised fraudsters can intercept these emails and delete them.
Ideally, if one uses home PC (desktop, laptop, etc.) for banking, they should use smartphone with preinstalled FI apps to login daily and check accounts balance. It is unlikely to have both devices compromised same time.

For that same reason, configure SMS delivery for 2FA codes, instead of email.

My VanCity statements always carry a note with my cheque images stating that cheques being listed in the statements does not necessarily mean they have/will be honored.

Scam reports always indicate that even cheques "cleared" may be back-charged weeks later. That's how the overpayment scam works: someone sends you a cheque for more than what is owed and asks for the extra back. Later, the original cheque bounces. Particularly common with cheques from Africa and work-from-home scams.

AR said
Wealthsimple is the only financial I have that sends notification for every single transaction.
forum.  

There is great variance in the number and types of alerts offered and probably most would not have helped the fraud victim. Good for Wealthsimple. I wish I could get alerted on every single transaction.

kelbee said

There is great variance in the number and types of alerts offered and probably most would not have helped the fraud victim. …

All the alerts wouldn't have helped the victim; he did the e-transfer himself! His bank, RBC, even called him and warned him it may be a scam. But, he went ahead anyways:

The site asked him to send the money through crypto.com — a Singapore-based company registered to operate in Canada through the Canadian Securities Administrators — using an e-transfer. The move concerned his bank.

“RBC phoned me and said, ‘Are you sure you want to do this?’” [the victim] Phaneuf said.

They told him cryptocurrencies often involve scams, but when he asked if RBC had problems with the specific company, crypto.com, the representative said no, Phaneuf said.

“He couldn’t give me an answer: is this OK or is this not OK?”

The call lasted five minutes.

I'm in my seventies. At any era I've lived through, there were scammers and scams, and scam warnings. Some scams over 50 years old are still being practiced. Maybe some new electronic scams have emerged, but grift is nothing new. Anyone who approached you with an offer - even family members or religious officials - are likely grifters.

ANYTHING on the web is almost certainly looking to take advantage of you.

RetirEd, re. the fraud that started this thread, no-one "approached" anybody, these transactions were done without the knowledge (until after the fact) of the victims.

Things are very different today.

The site asked him to send the money through crypto.com — a Singapore-based company registered to operate in Canada through the Canadian Securities Administrators — using an e-transfer. The move concerned his bank.

“RBC phoned me and said, ‘Are you sure you want to do this?’” [the victim] Phaneuf said.

They told him cryptocurrencies often involve scams, but when he asked if RBC had problems with the specific company, crypto.com, the representative said no, Phaneuf said.

“He couldn’t give me an answer: is this OK or is this not OK?”

The call lasted five minutes.

That's good that RBC called them to confirm the transaction, but I take issue with the question. Instead of asking a yes/no question, they should've asked the purpose of the transaction, as well as other pertinent transaction details like the name of the vendor the RBC customer was taking to, agent who was speaking to them, etc. If that couldn't have been requested, they should've blocked the transaction and requested they go into an RBC bank branch with a trusted family member or friend as counsel to speak to a banking advisor.

Cheers,
Doug

Pythagoras said

I see. Thanks for that!

But what I still don't understand - don't all banks place a 5-10 day hold on deposits? If Steinbach cleared the cheques before they were supposed to, then aren't they at fault?

Even if the funds were on hold for the 10 days, and Steinbach cleared the cheques after the 10 days, aren't they still at fault?

If someone deposits a cheque into my account without my knowledge, and Steinbach clears that cheque, why should I be responsible?  

I very much doubt there was no hold on the deposit. It seems likely she either didn't check her online accounts for more than 10 days, which was after the Access CU fraud, and the same fraudster was thus able to withdraw those funds via online bill payments, after the hold period had elapsed.

If you notice an unexplained $292,000 deposit to your account, should you not notify the bank right away?

Cheers,
Doug