Yes. It's easy to understand why the victim of this type of fraud (the banks) would like to shift the damages onto an unrelated third party (the person whom th

Yes. It's easy to understand why the victim of this type of fraud (the banks) would like to shift the damages onto an unrelated third party (the person whom the original perpetrator is purporting to be); it makes life much easier for them. What's not clear is why anyone else would would go along with it. If someone breaks into my home and steals my microwave, I cannot then break into my neighbor's home, steal their microwave, and then claim that my neighbor was the true victim of the burglar. I am the victim of theft, and now that I've stolen my neighbor's microwave, he is also the victim of theft. It doesn't cancel out! I think it's important to be clear about what's going on here, who the victims are, and who they are being victimized by.