3 ms·
Here's the thing about fraud, though: It's next to impossible to prove. There is NO visible difference between "I sent my new friend thousands of dollars becau
by smeej 4y ago
Here's the thing about fraud, though: It's next to impossible to prove.
There is NO visible difference between "I sent my new friend thousands of dollars because she's trying to start a new business and I'm investing...but now the business has gone under and I regret investing so I'm just going to tell the bank it was unauthorized," and, "I just sent my new friend thousands of dollars because she's trying to start a business and I'm investing...but now I've realized she was really a liar and there was no business."
Proving account takeover (ATO) is easier. There's some new IP (unless you gave someone remote access to your own device), new mouse behavior (yes this is a thing some institutions track), whatever.
But when you're the one who signed into your own bank account and sent your own money, you have every right to do that, even if you're sending it somewhere stupid that you later regret.
It's not up to the bank to protect you from your own stupidity. They just hold the money for you that you want to keep. Telling you that you can't send it somewhere you explicitly want to send it because they don't think it's a good idea isn't their job.
That's what they're calling "fraud" or "scams" here, and there's no reason your bank should be on the hook because you did something dumb with your own money.
- bombcar 4y agoExactly, as systems get more secure, indirect/third-party fraud decreases and direct fraud becomes caught more. How many people "chargeback" porn that they actually paid for because they got "caught"? As systems get better and better at preventing fraud, those chargebacks become harder and harder to believe.
- smeej 4y agoI have a friend who worked in chargebacks for a major international credit union. The number of exactly these cases he dealt with all the time is absolutely staggering.
- hayst4ck 4y ago> It's next to impossible to prove. Is it impossible to prevent? What types of entities are in a position to be most able to prevent fraud? What kinds of interventions can mitigate fraud? > That's what they're calling "fraud" or "scams" here, and there's no reason your bank should be on the hook because you did something dumb with your own money. On this point we disagree. My viewpoint is one of "what entity has the most ability to do something about the problem". Yours is one of individual responsibility. I would prefer the bank do something to protect my vulnerable grandma from doing something wrong to one where her mental decline and therefore her inability to comprehend her impending mistake is her responsibility.
- smeej 4y agoHow do you propose your bank tell the two situations apart that I mentioned? Your bank should not be considered the owner of your money. If you want to send your money somewhere, you should be able to do so because it belongs to you. If you later regret that decision, for any reason, you should certainly be able to request your money back from whomever received it, but why should the bank be the one to pay you back?
- brigade 4y ago> It's not up to the bank to protect you from your own stupidity. It is their legal obligation to reverse illegitimate transfers. Explicitly for ACH, and there's no good reason they should be exempt from this obligation just because the transfer was via Zelle instead of ACH. Which includes a mistaken recipient or amount, even without any fraud.
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago>Which includes a mistaken recipient or amount, even without any fraud. You keep saying that; but that's not what Regulation E says.
- smeej 4y agoYou're simply factually wrong about this. The transfer is legitimate if the owner of the account made it, even if they later realize they were stupid to have done so.