pre-paid credit card fraud

Do you know if the signature on the standing order form bears any resemblance to that person's genuine signature?

David

The police (and other official investigators) have the opportunity to approach a judge (a Crown Court judge in the case of a criminal investigation, a High Court judge for a civil recovery investigation) and ask for a Court Order requiring the bank or credit card company (or whoever) to produce information.  There are powers to do this under Part 8 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

The usual order is a 'production order' under s345.

But to apply for such an order the police etc have to specify the person whom they suspect of money laundering (or the person convicted in the case of a confiscation investigation).

In your case the police don't yet know whom they suspect.  So they can't get a court order under Part 8 PoCA 2002.

The way around this is for the police to notify the credit card company that they believe the standing order was forged and that therefore the monies received are proceeds of crime.  That means that the bank then have a suspicion that their customer is engaged in money laundering.  That means that the bank have an obligation to make a Suspicious Activity Report to SOCA under s330 PoCA 2002 (as amended by s104 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005).  That report must identify their customer.

Once SOCA add this information to their SAR database the local police can access it and then make application for a production order.

The bank / credit card company cannot ignore a court order (because that is contempt of court for which they can be prosecuted).

So if the police make the effort they can get the information.  But it's a question of resources and priorities.

David

So it is likely that the fraudster had actually seen the person's genuine signature and was making an attempt to copy it.

Can you give any more information about the amount involved (send me a private message via AWEB if you like)?  I am intrigued that you describe the amount withdrawn as a "not insubstantial sum" but the bank say it was "below the amount at which they would be triggered to check before processing".

I appreciate that withdrawals were weekly, but you said it did not go on for very long.

I am aware of fraudsters using bank card details (obtained illicitly) to top up pre-pay mobile phones, and keeping individual transactions to amounts which they expect will not be noticed (the low tens of pounds).  But it sounds to me as if you have some bigger figures in mind.

David

are the police really going to pour resources into this, i think not , DW may have been intimating this 

From what I've seen these pre-paid cards require proof of ID etc, BUT, if the applicant checks out on the electoral role then that is enough as far as they are concerned and they dont ask for further proof.

The problem is of course that anyone could apply for one of these cards using the name Micky Mouse and some convenient address.  They then forge a couple of documents and bingo - one card.

Presumably the idea was to let your company top up the card, and the fraudsters would then make cash withdrawals from ATM's (limited by these cards to £500 a day I believe).

I get very annoyed with these banks etc who know a crime is being committed, yet are so terrified of the Data Protection Act that they stick obstacles in the way of the police. Tracing the criminal should be fairly easy as they have an addess to which the criminal obviously has access, and will presumably have records of which ATMs have been used. Instead the banks make it impossible to trace these thieves.

As most crimes of this kind are "in house" I would be taking a very careful look at all employees too.

You do not need a correct signature any scribble will do, in fact a completely wrong name will suffice too!

as for DD's these seem to be processed before the signed form is returned or regardless of whether the form is returned.

you are very right, the electronic world is very much in favour of the fraudster, perhaps that is why it was designed as such ? you can always buy an insurance policy to protect yourself !! that the bank will sell you ! everyones a winner.

i understood that you didnt need to sign one anymore just give them the details over the phone and they nick it out of your account

... the floor limit is quite high.

We had a client had a cheque stolen from the post, the payee was obviously changed in thick black felt tip but the cheque was passed. It was only when HMRC came chasing for the PAYE for the month and the cheque examined that this was discovered.

My understanding is that the people processing the cheques are under such time pressure that they do not have time to move their eyes up to the payee line and only do so if the amount is quite large, I think £10k, can't remember as it was a while ago - the client's cheque was in excess of £4k!

In case you wonder, the bank re-paid it immediately to my client, but we then had hassle of correspondence with HMRC who removed the gross CIS status from my client as they had a PAYE default, despite never having put a foot wrong tax wise for over 40 years!!

My understanding is that the people processing the cheques are under such time pressure that they do not have time to move their eyes up to the payee line and only do so if the amount is quite large, I Posted by Old Greying Acc... on Tue, 01/03/2011 - 17:17

According to what I was told they only check a small %'age of cheques.

In these days when there are computer programs that will recognise faces, read car number plates and transcribe handwriting, it should not be too difficult for the banks to procure a program that will compare the signature on a cheque with the signature in their records.

I know from our church account that they don't check signatories if the cheque is for less than £5,000. After 18 months this was how we discovered that the bank hadn't processed the last mandate change, when a correctly signed cheque was knocked back.