3 ms·
To be fair, people didn't withdraw funds, someone was able to set up a recurring transfer (direct debit) from his account to a charity. Which makes it useless f
by semi-extrinsic 9y ago
To be fair, people didn't withdraw funds, someone was able to set up a recurring transfer (direct debit) from his account to a charity. Which makes it useless for theft, since the thief would leave definite proof of their identity (receiving account number).
The best part, I think, is Clarkson's response:
Clarkson now says of the case: "Contrary to what I said at the time, we must go after the idiots who lost the [personal information] and stick cocktail sticks in their eyes until they beg for mercy."
- jandrese 9y agoBank fraud frequently requires the crook to supply an account number to transfer the funds to. This is not a problem if the only activity on the account is: 1. Opened with a fake identity 2. Stolen funds received 3. Stolen funds transferred to a bank with (intentionally) poor record keeping, potentially bouncing around a few more times. Wire transfers seem to be a big hole at the moment.