Service Beyond The Call Of Duty - Offshore Powerboats Ltd Lymington

[pan]

Interesting to hear that 97% of cheque fraud is caught at clearing!!! I seriously doubt that from our own experience, how could clearing possibly know if a cheque was stolen? I have seen cheques that cleared where the name has been changed & the words & figures don't match!!

The scam I referred to, involved multiple hits at up market jewellers throughout the Uk, up to £2m involved. The 'client' story is that he has just sold property for several million, wants to invest in loose diamonds, jeweller puts together a collection for client to view several days later, client does some huffing & puffing, and finally selects maybe £100k worth… so far so good, informs the vendor that funds will be bank transferred to business account in a few days & he will collect when funds are 'cleared', vendor asks his bank to inform him when funds arrive in the account, which duly happens & phone call made to made to vendor from bank…'client' calls to confirm paid & comes in to collect. 2-3 weeks later vendor discovers the funds have been taken from his account (no contact from his bank) when checked on discovers that it was a stolen cheque deposited in a branch of the same bank he uses (but drawn on another bank) which automatically shows on vendors account!

We were already aware of this scam, so when approached contacted the police & the trap was set, when the 'client' came to collect his goods he got the shock of his life to be arrested by 4 plain clothes police officers….. fantastic Unfortunately despite having done about £2m he & his partner got about 3 years, 1.5 for good behaviour, not bad £2m for 1.5yr in front of the tele at the pleasure of HMG, probably bought a nice 60 footer when he came out!! Crime really does not pay!

Chaps is really the only safe way to receive payment, electronic transfers can be recalled!

 

[gjgm]

Interesting to hear that 97% of cheque fraud is caught at clearing!!! I seriously doubt that from our own experience, how could clearing possibly know if a cheque was stolen?

Well, I imagine the banks have access to more stats than you and me ! They know the found fraudulent cheques, and they know the ones that slipped though, presumably because people complain !
FPS isnt re-callable either, and should in fact be faster than Chaps, though, depending on on your bank, there is a payment limit. I think the system limit is £100k, but only a few banks actually offer that high a limit.
The banks have two choices.. dont credit anyone with anything until a cheque is fully cleared, or credit the account (albeit, uncleared) and reverse off the small number of problem ones. I guess the first method is the established one.

 

[pan]

I take your point gjgm, and would not presume to suggest I know more than the banks. Surprised about the FPS, my bank tells me that they reserve the right to take back the funds, if it was done in error (no problem with that, because if it was an error we wouldn't have expected it anyway) but also if the sender had managed by multiple transfers, to exceed their credit limit… my next action is to speak to my bank relationship manager again! (although I have found in the past that even senior managers don't have a clear grasp of the banking rules)

I don't have an issue in cheques being done away with, but the banking system has to ensure that electronic transfers are irreversible!

Sorry to all about the thread drift..

 

[rustybarge]

I take your point gjgm, and would not presume to suggest I know more than the banks. Surprised about the FPS, my bank tells me that they reserve the right to take back the funds, if it was done in error (no problem with that, because if it was an error we wouldn't have expected it anyway) but also if the sender had managed by multiple transfers, to exceed their credit limit… my next action is to speak to my bank relationship manager again! (although I have found in the past that even senior managers don't have a clear grasp of the banking rules)

I don't have an issue in cheques being done away with, but the banking system has to ensure that electronic transfers are irreversible!

Sorry to all about the thread drift..

Sorry to cloud this issue further, I suspect that Chaps or any other electronic money transfer system will come under common law, the law of reasonable behaviour. IE: Any form of payment could be deemed invalid if it involved fraud.

 

[gjgm]

Sorry to cloud this issue further, I suspect that Chaps or any other electronic money transfer system will come under common law, the law of reasonable behaviour. IE: Any form of payment could be deemed invalid if it involved fraud.

Both FPS and Chaps are irrevocable- this is why your own internet banking probably has some check asking you to "double check" you have the right details.
A slight proviso, both systems put anti money laundering liability on the receiving bank. In FPS the receiving bank has up to two hours to verify before crediting the account, so there is a small window where the receiving bank may refuse/return the funds. But once credited to an account, it is then there. Chaps is slightly different in the process, but the idea is the same.
If a payment is made in error, you need authority from the recipient account. That doesnt matter if the error is by you, or the bank. You cant recall either, you can just request.
Pan- I guess a bank might make you sign a policy that gives them some authority, but that isnt part of the payment systems- that is an arrangement between you and your bank, I suppose.
Or, as you suggest, they dont know what they are talking about !

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

Both FPS and Chaps are irrevocable

I'm no expert on banking but as I said in my previous posts, my company has experienced bank transfers being reversed several days after the amounts have been credited to our accounts on the basis that they have been fraudulent transfers. Admittedly these have been transfers from foreign banks outside the EU so possibly these are not regulated in the same way as FPS or CHAPS transfers within the UK/EU. Any experts out there who can clarify the differences between transfers from foreign banks and those from UK or EU banks?

 

[gjgm]

I'm no expert on banking but as I said in my previous posts, my company has experienced bank transfers being reversed several days after the amounts have been credited to our accounts on the basis that they have been fraudulent transfers. Admittedly these have been transfers from foreign banks outside the EU so possibly these are not regulated in the same way as FPS or CHAPS transfers within the UK/EU. Any experts out there who can clarify the differences between transfers from foreign banks and those from UK or EU banks?

Ok, well we need to isolate what is permissible with the structure of the payment systems, and what you have seperately signed with your bank (maybe unwittingly!). I dont know what you have agreed to !
As regards foreign payments, this is probably via SWIFT which consists of two messages.. one is the bank to bank payment and the other is the bank to account settlement. A foreign bank may use B***clays in Uk as their agent/bank and would instruct them to pay Nw***st and to your account. Still, these are then payments made. The premise is that once it is in your account, it is there. The bank cant just decide..oh, its fraud (says who?) and take it back out again. However, the bank may decide on a business account that deals with some "unusual" locations, that life would be simpler for them if they got you to sign some other arrangements.
I should say that Cards is a whole different game.

 

[Deleted User YDKXO]

As regards foreign payments, this is probably via SWIFT which consists of two messages.. one is the bank to bank payment and the other is the bank to account settlement. A foreign bank may use B***clays in Uk as their agent/bank and would instruct them to pay Nw***st and to your account. Still, these are then payments made. The premise is that once it is in your account, it is there. The bank cant just decide..oh, its fraud (says who?) and take it back out again. However, the bank may decide on a business account that deals with some "unusual" locations, that life would be simpler for them if they got you to sign some other arrangements.

Correct, we are generally paid by SWIFT transfer but we have not knowingly signed any authorisation permitting our bank (Barclays) to rescind a SWIFT transfer in the event that they think is is fraudulent but I can assure you, it has happened. As it happens, in all of these cases, I have had my suspicions right from the start of the negotiations and I have not authorised the goods to be shipped for at least 2 weeks after the transfer has been credited to our account so we have not lost out. Are you saying that Barclays have acted incorrectly in these matters because I will take it up with them straightaway? We are talking relatively large amounts of money so this is potentially a serious matter

 

[gjgm]

Correct, we are generally paid by SWIFT transfer but we have not knowingly signed any authorisation permitting our bank (Barclays) to rescind a SWIFT transfer in the event that they think is is fraudulent but I can assure you, it has happened. As it happens, in all of these cases, I have had my suspicions right from the start of the negotiations and I have not authorised the goods to be shipped for at least 2 weeks after the transfer has been credited to our account so we have not lost out. Are you saying that Barclays have acted incorrectly in these matters because I will take it up with them straightaway? We are talking relatively large amounts of money so this is potentially a serious matter

better be via PM

 

[pan]

Both FPS and Chaps are irrevocable- this is why your own internet banking probably has some check asking you to "double check" you have the right details.
A slight proviso, both systems put anti money laundering liability on the receiving bank. In FPS the receiving bank has up to two hours to verify before crediting the account, so there is a small window where the receiving bank may refuse/return the funds. But once credited to an account, it is then there. Chaps is slightly different in the process, but the idea is the same.
If a payment is made in error, you need authority from the recipient account. That doesnt matter if the error is by you, or the bank. You cant recall either, you can just request.
Pan- I guess a bank might make you sign a policy that gives them some authority, but that isnt part of the payment systems- that is an arrangement between you and your bank, I suppose.
Or, as you suggest, they dont know what they are talking about !

We have never signed anything specific with our bank…. think you last sentence probably covers it! My query with the bank today has now bounced though 4 different departments… without a clear answer!

 

[pks1702]

I'm not in any way suggesting that pks1702 is anything but completely honest but IMHO, the broker has been too lenient in allowing the boat to leave before the money hits his account although I'm not sure whether the broker was selling the boat under his own name,

Glad my integrity is not being called into question! Chris was clearly an excellent judge of character.....

As I have said numerous times the boat was owned by the broker so his decision, had he not decided to release the boat I would have perfectly understood, the fact that he did was the key reason I moved heaven and earth to resolve the situation and get the cash to him.

His bank confirmed the CHAPS transfer had been made but to the wrong beneficiary it was a clear c*ock up. The main delay was his bank not returning the money although my bank was agreeable with them transferring the funds to the Brokers account and would before transfer provide a fax confirming they would take responsibility, his bank would not comply.

Yes we can all be cynical but almost everything in business is a judgement call, each of us make our own decisions. In this case I was clearly able to demonstrate that I was genuine and it was known exactly where the boat was going.

Clearly excellent judgement.

Anyway the reason for this post was not to chew over the finer points of fraud but more to describe a balls up a bank made which could have scuppered a purchase but did not thanks to the trust of a broker in a time when potential customers trust of 'some' brokers is at an all time low.