The Pompey Chimes Forum

Beware emails asking for payments to go to a different account, even if the email is definitely from the same source as those you're trying to pay.
Last year 5,000 people were scammed in this way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36086055

The example cited is of a woman who'd bought an expensive wood-burning stove. She lost over £2,500 because the fitters emailed her asking for the money to be put into a different account.

Now the bank refunded her money as a goodwill gesture but warned it might not do so for further instances.

Later on in the above linked article from the Beeb it says of those 5,000 people who have been scammed last year, "Of those affected, 36% of them said it had a severe or significant impact on them, meaning it affected their health or their ability to make ends meet."

So the question that occurred to me is why can't the police trace the criminals given they have their bank account details?

Even if they close the account down straight away there must be a trail to them. You can't set up a bank account that easily I wouldn't have thought.

And there must be a trail to where the money went after it was abstracted from the dodgy account - like CCTV images of someone entering their bank and drawing the money or whatever.

Anyway, be warned.

When I did jury service for that mammoth fraud case a few years back, you'd have thought the scam was pretty clear cut. However it still took three years to bring to court, after the innumerable warrants for phone and computer records, and still the potential difficulty in proving whether the fraudsters had broken any pre-existing laws. A large sticking point was clients being so utterly gullible and careless, the criminals didn't always have to lie or deceive to get their money.

The other thing the Crown usually wants is to prove conspiracy. Thats what gets the big years, with multiple people on trial, setting a massive precedent. Otherwise its just one name on the end-user bank account, which is probably false anyway, and the fraud just starts up again elsewhere.

Weybridge wrote:When I did jury service for that mammoth fraud case a few years back, you'd have thought the scam was pretty clear cut. However it still took three years to bring to court, after the innumerable warrants for phone and computer records, and still the potential difficulty in proving whether the fraudsters had broken any pre-existing laws. A large sticking point was clients being so utterly gullible and careless, the criminals didn't always have to lie or deceive to get their money.

The other thing the Crown usually wants is to prove conspiracy. Thats what gets the big years, with multiple people on trial, setting a massive precedent. Otherwise its just one name on the end-user bank account, which is probably false anyway, and the fraud just starts up again elsewhere.

May one ask if you and your 12 good men and true were able to reach a verdict or did his Honour discharge you into the great wide world and ask you never to darken his Court room again?

Now get back in the hanger and start repairing that aircraft struck by the drone - you don't have time to visit football forums.....there's WORK to be done!

It was judging four defendants on five separate counts each, so wasn't as clear cut as just guilty/not guilty.

The ringleader was clearly as guilty as hell and got seven years (and I've just googled him and noticed he's also got slapped with a separate fourteen year sentence for an entirely different scam involving diamonds...).

The company secretary was found guilty pretty soon after.

The fourth guy was cleared of all charges, largely because he was utterly clueless (so clueless his barrister advised him not to take the stand!). He was transparently being set up by the others, who panicked when they realised they were in trouble, and 'promoted' him to Director level while they tried to abscond.

Finally the third guy was where the real problem lay. Probably guilty, but the Prosecution never quite made the case against him. He legitimately pocketed about £180k (the whole scam took about £2m) from the proceeds, but was never directly involved with conning any member of the public. No evidence against him planning it, or even dispersing money - and getting paid by your employer isn't a crime.

We were split in the jury room on him for about ten days. I think at most it was 8-4 in favour of guilty, but only briefly. Most of the time it was a 6-6 split. In the end, judge discharged us after failing to reach a verdict. Prosecution were free to put him on trial again, but I believe they were happy enough with the two guilty verdicts.