4 ms·

Not true in the EU, we got scammed into making a bank transfer from Germany to Belgium for a bicycle that never arrived. We contacted the police and bank with a

Not true in the EU, we got scammed into making a bank transfer from Germany to Belgium for a bicycle that never arrived. We contacted the police and bank with all the details, and had to pay our bank about 40 euros to ask the scammer if they would refund the money, they said no and that was it. EU banking laws protected them. On the plus side the website appears to be gone now.

basisword 5y ago
Voluntarily transferring money is very different from having it stolen. The bank should protect your money while holding it from theft. They can't protect you from your own decisions on how to use your money.
- MereInterest 5y ago
  They voluntarily accepted a contract wherein they would transfer money in exchange for receiving a bicycle. No bicycle was received, so this voluntary decision does not mean that the money transfer was voluntary. They did not accept a contract wherein they would transfer money in exchange for nothing. Since they did not accept this contract, this does not make the money transfer be voluntary. Being a victim of fraud is not "voluntary" in any meaningful way.
  - basisword 5y ago
    That's got absolutely nothing to do with the bank. It's between you and the 'merchant'.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > this voluntary decision does not mean that the money transfer was voluntary Voluntary or not is a red herring. The word this discussion is looking for is authorized. The transfer was authorized by the account holder. They were defrauded. But when they made the transfer, then intended to do so. (The situation is murkier with credit card transactions, at least in America, because they chose to accept a role in dispute resolution.) The $625mm drained out of Axie's account wasn't authorized by Sky Mavis. That's a different type of fraud than being ripped off.
  - femto113 5y ago
    In the old American paper check system there was an important but subtle distinction between "fraud in the making" and "fraud in the inducement". If a criminal stole your checkbook and forged a check then an intermediary (like a bank or a grocery store) which cashed a stolen check could be on the hook for the money--if you protested to your bank the transaction could be reversed. However if the criminal simply induced you to write them a valid check (e.g. as payment for a non-existent bicycle) then any intermediary that cashed the check is not on the hook, and the only recourse is to get the money back from the criminal.
brazzy 5y ago
Banks won't reverse transfers depiberately initiated by the account holder. You would have had to go through the legal system to get your money back. But that's a different case than money being "drained" from an account by someone else.
- Symbiote 5y ago
  They sometimes do reverse these transactions, but the amount of money involved here (1 bicycle worth) is probably easy for the scammer to put out-of-reach of the bank very quickly -- withdrawing cash, buying gift cards etc.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  Yeah, just like they won't reverse cash transaction. Pay someone on street for something, they take the money and don't give you what you wanted. Go to police, and they won't get your original cash back...
gowld 5y ago
That's because you didn't use an escrow service between your account and the seller. If you did, the escrow service would provide some measure of legally-supported reversibility.
reaperducer 5y ago
€40 is not the same thing. If you got scammed out of €650 million, you would have gotten better attention. That's the point being made here.

basisword 5y ago

Voluntarily transferring money is very different from having it stolen. The bank should protect your money while holding it from theft. They can't protect you from your own decisions on how to use your money.

MereInterest 5y ago
They voluntarily accepted a contract wherein they would transfer money in exchange for receiving a bicycle. No bicycle was received, so this voluntary decision does not mean that the money transfer was voluntary. They did not accept a contract wherein they would transfer money in exchange for nothing. Since they did not accept this contract, this does not make the money transfer be voluntary. Being a victim of fraud is not "voluntary" in any meaningful way.
- basisword 5y ago
  That's got absolutely nothing to do with the bank. It's between you and the 'merchant'.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > this voluntary decision does not mean that the money transfer was voluntary Voluntary or not is a red herring. The word this discussion is looking for is authorized. The transfer was authorized by the account holder. They were defrauded. But when they made the transfer, then intended to do so. (The situation is murkier with credit card transactions, at least in America, because they chose to accept a role in dispute resolution.) The $625mm drained out of Axie's account wasn't authorized by Sky Mavis. That's a different type of fraud than being ripped off.
- femto113 5y ago
  In the old American paper check system there was an important but subtle distinction between "fraud in the making" and "fraud in the inducement". If a criminal stole your checkbook and forged a check then an intermediary (like a bank or a grocery store) which cashed a stolen check could be on the hook for the money--if you protested to your bank the transaction could be reversed. However if the criminal simply induced you to write them a valid check (e.g. as payment for a non-existent bicycle) then any intermediary that cashed the check is not on the hook, and the only recourse is to get the money back from the criminal.

brazzy 5y ago

Banks won't reverse transfers depiberately initiated by the account holder. You would have had to go through the legal system to get your money back. But that's a different case than money being "drained" from an account by someone else.

Symbiote 5y ago
They sometimes do reverse these transactions, but the amount of money involved here (1 bicycle worth) is probably easy for the scammer to put out-of-reach of the bank very quickly -- withdrawing cash, buying gift cards etc.
Ekaros 5y ago
Yeah, just like they won't reverse cash transaction. Pay someone on street for something, they take the money and don't give you what you wanted. Go to police, and they won't get your original cash back...

gowld 5y ago

That's because you didn't use an escrow service between your account and the seller. If you did, the escrow service would provide some measure of legally-supported reversibility.

reaperducer 5y ago

€40 is not the same thing. If you got scammed out of €650 million, you would have gotten better attention. That's the point being made here.