5 ms·

> Okay, but what happens if your device(s) have been compromised, and a payment is misdirected? File a police report, same as in article with washed /rewritte

> Okay, but what happens if your device(s) have been compromised, and a payment is misdirected? File a police report, same as in article with washed /rewritten check... Then figure out how you got compromised so it doesnt happen again.

maratc 4y ago
The only difference from the check fraud is this: since the fraudsters — having the password and OTP — are indistinguishable from you, the bank may not return your money (out of his pocket). And since the money was already cashed out, there's nowhere to get it back from. Bottom line, you will eat the damage.
- adriancr 4y ago
  How is this different from washed check? That is also 'indistinguishable from you', check is valid and has your signature. In both cases you have to hope that funds can be clawed back. The author does point that it took 3 months to get funds back and it would have been difficult if he could not prove checks as fraud. I would also rate difficulty of grabbing otp and password as more difficult then intercepting an envelope. (outside cases where people willfully give them away to 'tech support'... in which case they might as well write a blank check) Police already being aware of 30+ cases in author's context does say its widespread issue even for savvy persons. I could fall victim by simply mailing a check, whereas I can't imagine having my bank account hacked.
  - maratc 4y ago
    > How is this different from washed check? I've pointed out the difference: banks, police, and courts understand check fraud. They don't understand account takeovers, as these are much more complicated. They are much more likely to side with you on a case they understand, and reinstate you, and you need them to side with you if you want your money back. There even may be a law that in the case of check fraud, the customer should be made whole. I seriously doubt there is such a law in the cases of email takeover. > The author does point that it took 3 months to get funds back As opposed to the cases where it took people much longer and they did NOT get their funds back?
    - adriancr 4y ago
      > banks, police, and courts understand check fraud. How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check? You fail to realise same issue is in both cases. Same procedures work in both cases. If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments. They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment.
      - maratc 4y ago
        > How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check? "Here is the picture of the check that I put in the mail" > they should be willing to do the same for epayments. Leaving "should" aside, sadly this is not how it works in practice.
      - mindslight 4y ago
        > If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments. The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Rather they rely on crude pattern matching, with regulations to protect your rights. If a bank is able to close your case as a matter of "user error" and move on, it is likely to do so. You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things that are apparently very similar in the society you are used to, but not in others. In the US, there have been plenty of cases of people having to fight their bank because of forged transactions on some new "100% secure" digital scheme - the all too common trope of humans believing computers as authoritative sources rather than critically examining their workings. So, please enjoy your society where you can rely on the system to behave reasonably in the face of newer technology, and please stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not.
        adriancr 4y ago
        > The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Are you basing this on something other then assumptions? If you go to the police and say you are a victim of fraud they will help, how it happened is secondary. Why so little faith in authorities? > You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things What I did say is police should help you if you are a victim, how it happened is secondary. That is on top of saying checks are a lot more insecure and its a lot more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives. > stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not You can enjoy the alternatives, just search for them. (one of the banks I'm using is revolut which is in the usa too and easy to set up on your phone...) As for gaslighting... That's just incredulity towards dismissiveness... If it seems like bad faith, it's not, surprised it would be interpreted as such so I'll stop.
  - Amezarak 4y ago
    By law, the bank is liable for accepting a forged check, not you. They are required to reimburse you unless you did something very careless. https://www.helpwithmybank.gov/help-topics/fraud-scams/forgery/check-forgery-negligence.html#:~:text=Generally%2C%20the%20bank%20will%20require%20you%20to%20complete,generally%20required%20to%20reimburse%20customers%20for%20forged%20checks https://www.helpwithmybank.gov/help-topics/fraud-scams/forge....
    - adriancr 4y ago
      surprisingly, they should also refund you for fraud, identity theft, etc... Under the same conditions - that you haven't acted ‘grossly negligent’ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/banking/banking-security-and-fraud/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/banking/ban...

maratc 4y ago

The only difference from the check fraud is this: since the fraudsters — having the password and OTP — are indistinguishable from you, the bank may not return your money (out of his pocket). And since the money was already cashed out, there's nowhere to get it back from. Bottom line, you will eat the damage.

adriancr 4y ago
How is this different from washed check? That is also 'indistinguishable from you', check is valid and has your signature. In both cases you have to hope that funds can be clawed back. The author does point that it took 3 months to get funds back and it would have been difficult if he could not prove checks as fraud. I would also rate difficulty of grabbing otp and password as more difficult then intercepting an envelope. (outside cases where people willfully give them away to 'tech support'... in which case they might as well write a blank check) Police already being aware of 30+ cases in author's context does say its widespread issue even for savvy persons. I could fall victim by simply mailing a check, whereas I can't imagine having my bank account hacked.
- maratc 4y ago
  > How is this different from washed check? I've pointed out the difference: banks, police, and courts understand check fraud. They don't understand account takeovers, as these are much more complicated. They are much more likely to side with you on a case they understand, and reinstate you, and you need them to side with you if you want your money back. There even may be a law that in the case of check fraud, the customer should be made whole. I seriously doubt there is such a law in the cases of email takeover. > The author does point that it took 3 months to get funds back As opposed to the cases where it took people much longer and they did NOT get their funds back?
  - adriancr 4y ago
    > banks, police, and courts understand check fraud. How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check? You fail to realise same issue is in both cases. Same procedures work in both cases. If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments. They do that by checking the other party of the transfers, if its known scammers, then in both cases you get your money back. If not... tough luck for both check and payment.
    - maratc 4y ago
      > How do they prove its fraud as opposed to you reneging on a valid check? "Here is the picture of the check that I put in the mail" > they should be willing to do the same for epayments. Leaving "should" aside, sadly this is not how it works in practice.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      > If police are willing to entertain a check signed by you is fraudulent they should be willing to do the same for epayments. The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Rather they rely on crude pattern matching, with regulations to protect your rights. If a bank is able to close your case as a matter of "user error" and move on, it is likely to do so. You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things that are apparently very similar in the society you are used to, but not in others. In the US, there have been plenty of cases of people having to fight their bank because of forged transactions on some new "100% secure" digital scheme - the all too common trope of humans believing computers as authoritative sources rather than critically examining their workings. So, please enjoy your society where you can rely on the system to behave reasonably in the face of newer technology, and please stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not.
      - adriancr 4y ago
        > The police, along with bank employees, generally aren't great at simultaneously entertaining multiple possibilities. Are you basing this on something other then assumptions? If you go to the police and say you are a victim of fraud they will help, how it happened is secondary. Why so little faith in authorities? > You have blown up this thread asserting the complete equivalence of two things What I did say is police should help you if you are a victim, how it happened is secondary. That is on top of saying checks are a lot more insecure and its a lot more difficult if not impossible to fall victim with alternatives. > stop trying to gaslight those of us who can not You can enjoy the alternatives, just search for them. (one of the banks I'm using is revolut which is in the usa too and easy to set up on your phone...) As for gaslighting... That's just incredulity towards dismissiveness... If it seems like bad faith, it's not, surprised it would be interpreted as such so I'll stop.
- Amezarak 4y ago
  By law, the bank is liable for accepting a forged check, not you. They are required to reimburse you unless you did something very careless. https://www.helpwithmybank.gov/help-topics/fraud-scams/forgery/check-forgery-negligence.html#:~:text=Generally%2C%20the%20bank%20will%20require%20you%20to%20complete,generally%20required%20to%20reimburse%20customers%20for%20forged%20checks https://www.helpwithmybank.gov/help-topics/fraud-scams/forge....
  - adriancr 4y ago
    surprisingly, they should also refund you for fraud, identity theft, etc... Under the same conditions - that you haven't acted ‘grossly negligent’ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/banking/banking-security-and-fraud/ https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/banking/ban...