'My business had £1.6m stolen in 20 minutes'

[robinessex]

My business had £1.6m stolen in 20 minutes

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67149919

The boss of a small business that had £1.6m stolen in a matter of minutes through fraud has strongly criticised the response from the authorities.

Where do you start with this one ? Many reasons it should've not happened, and, when it does, the banks are useless.

[Radec]

Maybe a training need is due for the FC

[Biggy Stardust]

He seems to be criticising everyone outside his company but not his own people who gave the fraudsters the ability to steal.

[Gecko1978]

Yeah ultimately the bank never makes you move money (it can block transactions on your account) there are scanes fake call centers (which operate out of same building of legitimate ones off shore)

[robinessex]

I'm frankly shocked that anyone who works on/in the finances department of ANY company doesn't get scrupulous training on financial security. I will add anyone with a minimum amount of commonsense shouldn't/wouldn't get caught.

[shed driver]

I'm rather naive here, but is there no electronic trail? Who controls the bank account the money first went in to?

SD.

[robinessex]

shed driver said:

I'm rather naive here, but is there no electronic trail? Who controls the bank account the money first went in to?

SD.

Exactly one of my thoughts. Once it's on a bank's computer, records are available wherever it goes.

[Zetec-S]

robinessex said:

shed driver said:

I'm rather naive here, but is there no electronic trail? Who controls the bank account the money first went in to?

SD.

Exactly one of my thoughts. Once it's on a bank's computer, records are available wherever it goes.

Yes, but by the time the bank has investigated I'm sure the money has been moved on a few times since then. Probably using stolen or overseas accounts.

[robinessex]

Zetec-S said:

robinessex said:

shed driver said:

I'm rather naive here, but is there no electronic trail? Who controls the bank account the money first went in to?

SD.

Exactly one of my thoughts. Once it's on a bank's computer, records are available wherever it goes.

Yes, but by the time the bank has investigated I'm sure the money has been moved on a few times since then. Probably using stolen or overseas accounts.

There are still records, it's all on a computer somewhere. I send money abroad regularly. It takes a bit of effort to set up the processes, but records are available right through to the recipient.

[Hol]

shed driver said:

I'm rather naive here, but is there no electronic trail?

It sounds like the FC gave access to the companies accounts, so yes there would be a single audit trail to the dozen receiving accounts where the money was moved.

But, it’s incorrect/naive to assume that the sending bank has any further control over money one the receiving bank has it.

shed driver said:

Who controls the bank account the money first went in to?

SD.

The dozen receiving banks. Whoever they were.

Because it was not returned on request by Barclays, I would assume it was moved on again very quickly and rinse/repeat.

In summary:
Banks can only fully control the money that is in their own systems.
They cannot grab money back from other banks, because someone made a mistake.

[snuffy]

It's very short of detail, but he seems to have fallen for the "This is your bank here, your account is it risk from criminals, so you need to move your money to a safe account" deception.

[Hoofy]

robinessex said:

I'm frankly shocked that anyone who works on/in the finances department of ANY company doesn't get scrupulous training on financial security. I will add anyone with a minimum amount of commonsense shouldn't/wouldn't get caught.

It's odd. There might be an opportunity for a stress testing consultancy here. Obviously, the CEO would pay the consultant to "commit fraud" just to test whether the company's system is robust. Kinda like whatever a cyber security consultant does.

[sir humphrey appleby]

Not strictly related but my Barclays managed to retrieve 15k that my dad unfortunately transferred to some thugs who charged £26k for three hours work on his roof. The rest was via cheque.
Ignoring the fact that these ‘people’ took advantage of an elderly , vulnerable man in his own home and intimidated him to transferring the money whilst they stood in his sitting room, it was reported as a crime.
I have to say that Barclays were amazing. So the ability to get the money back is there.

[VeeReihenmotor6]

Odd that "an employee" enabled this fraud to happen. Everywhere I have worked and even in voluntary treasurer positions has at least 2 authorisation required and over a certain £limit need to have approval by someone at board level.

[Hol]

robinessex said:

Zetec-S said:

robinessex said:

shed driver said:

I'm rather naive here, but is there no electronic trail? Who controls the bank account the money first went in to?

SD.

Exactly one of my thoughts. Once it's on a bank's computer, records are available wherever it goes.

Yes, but by the time the bank has investigated I'm sure the money has been moved on a few times since then. Probably using stolen or overseas accounts.

There are still records, it's all on a computer somewhere. I send money abroad regularly. It takes a bit of effort to set up the processes, but records are available right through to the recipient.

How would that work?

Let’s assume that it’s all been moved on another 10 times, so 120 individual transactions via 10-20 worldwide banks.

[shed driver]

Hol said:

robinessex said:

Zetec-S said:

robinessex said:

shed driver said:

I'm rather naive here, but is there no electronic trail? Who controls the bank account the money first went in to?

SD.

Exactly one of my thoughts. Once it's on a bank's computer, records are available wherever it goes.

Yes, but by the time the bank has investigated I'm sure the money has been moved on a few times since then. Probably using stolen or overseas accounts.

There are still records, it's all on a computer somewhere. I send money abroad regularly. It takes a bit of effort to set up the processes, but records are available right through to the recipient.

How would that work?

Let’s assume that it’s all been moved on another 10 times, so 120 individual transactions via 10-20 worldwide banks.

But there is a trace? It may involve work to do it, but it can't be impossible.

SD.

[Tommo87]

sir humphrey appleby said:

Not strictly related but my Barclays managed to retrieve 15k that my dad unfortunately transferred to some thugs who charged £26k for three hours work on his roof. The rest was via cheque.
Ignoring the fact that these ‘people’ took advantage of an elderly , vulnerable man in his own home and intimidated him to transferring the money whilst they stood in his sitting room, it was reported as a crime.
I have to say that Barclays were amazing. So the ability to get the money back is there.

I would guess it was because the money (or funds to the same value) was still in the receiving account.

Also that the receiving bank was in agreement with returning it.

[President Merkin]

Happened to me once. I paid a supplier invoice, thought no more about it until they complained about non payment. Turned out I had got the account number wrong by a single digit. The sending & receiving banks referred me backwards & forwards to each other until I gave up. This would have been around 2012, I thnk the law may have changed since then but I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which the banks wash their hands of problems when things go wrong.

[Far Cough]

Inside job ...... One of the employees will soon resign to collect his winnings.

[Tommo87]

President Merkin said:

Happened to me once. I paid a supplier invoice, thought no more about it until they complained about non payment. Turned out I had got the account number wrong by a single digit. The sending & receiving banks referred me backwards & forwards to each other until I gave up. This would have been around 2012, I thnk the law may have changed since then but I wouldn't underestimate the degree to which the banks wash their hands of problems when things go wrong.

I think you will find that the person who received your money had spent it. So it couldn’t be returned.
Not unlike the situation with the first transfer in the OP, if the money was moved on.

Most apps now check the recipient details and note discrepancies to help people who type in the wrong number.