Slashdot Mirror
Nigerian Email Scam Victim Sues Bank, Loses Appeal
reidhellyer writes "From California Litigation Attorney Blog: 'While many victims of the so-called "Nigerian e-mail scam" would be too embarrassed to trumpet that fact, others end up infamous for their victimhood like the appellant in a published opinion of the California Court of Appeal in Riverside. In March 2009, Charles Peters received an email from someone purporting to be a citizen of Malaysia. The e-mail informed Peters that certain third parties in the United States and Canada owed the Malaysian money, but that “they can not transfer the funds to any bank account outside America continent due to their new company policy [sic].” He asked Peters to “assist me in receiving the funds and forward to me.” He offered to pay Peters 12 percent of the money. Peters agreed after apparently negotiating an increase of his fee to 15 percent.'"
Haha, what a tool. Everyone knows that only Nigerian citizens are the real deal.
It may be 7 digits, but at least it's a semiprime
At this point "Nigerian scam" refers to the technique and proceedings more than the origin.
Well, in his defense, Maylasia isn't in Africa. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maylasia
When a bank tells you a check has cleared, that's only provisional subject to final clearance. Who knew?
If you read the article you will notice the victim tried to be cautious. He deposited the check into his bank account. He later verified with the bank that the check had cleared. Only then did he wire funds out of his account. Sometime later the bank revoked the checks claiming they had been altered. Since the victim did not have any money to cover the lost funds the bank attached a lien to his property.
It was actually the bank that lost money. The bank is trying to collect from the victim. The victim sued the bank to have the lien removed from his property. He lost, and lost again on appeal.
Frankly, I think it is the bank that should be held responsible here. They are the ones that verified the check was good, that it cleared, that the funds were in the victim's accounts, and they are the ones that allowed the funds to be wired out of the country. Ultimately, the bank will be held liable since they will never collect their $468,000. But they are all-to-happy to do whatever they can to ruin the victim's life in the process.
I'm not so sure the banks don't share in the blame. After all, they tell people the checks have cleared knowing damned well that most people don't know they might yet yank the money back out for a wide variety of reasons. In this case, the bank was more than happy to transfer a huge chunk of cash from the man's account, far more than he had ever had in there until the recent checks that had "cleared". Now it wants to take it out of his hide rather than pulling it back from the transfer.
The LEAST they could have done is told him when he checked that it was cleared was make sure he knew that didn't mean it couldn't be pulled out again. One lousy sentence out of a teller's mouth could have saved this guy half a million dollars worth of pain.
Yes, he should have known it was a scam (it's not just well known on sites like /., the local news has stories about it from time to time as well), but surely the banks should be VERY well aware of the scam and should at least make a minimal effort to warn their customers.
Asking the bank if the check cleared yields an answer which doesn't mean shit. If none of that means anything, what question must one ask the bank to require them to not reverse the answer? Is there a point where they can't do what ever the fuck they want to do?
I think I just cashed out all my cool points.
So what are you proposing as an alternative? That the banks wait until each check has totally cleared(taking weeks or longer in some cases) to totally clear? What about the vast, vast majority of the cases where the check does clear? Should everyone else be forced to wait weeks so morons won't have to suffer the consequences of their own stupidity?
I assume that is exactly what the poster is proposing, and it is a damn good idea. The bank does not have to FORCE everyone to wait, but they should not say "the cheque has cleared", and then later say "sorry, the cheque has un-cleared, we want that money back."
It's OK for the bank to give you access to the money before they have it, but they should be 100% clear about the possibility of they clawing the money back. They should tell you that it is "provisionally clear" when you are allowed to take the money out but there is a chance they will ask for it back, and they should tell you it is "clear" when they are completely confident that they money is there and you can safely spend it. And once they have told you the cheque is "clear", then they have taken the risk.
Banks could do a lot more to prevent fraud, but they don't have really strong financial incentives to, because most of the banking laws are designed to push the risk from them to you. Why should they care when they aren't the ones losing the money?
I hate it when I make a joke and I get modded "+5 insightful". Mod the stupid comments "funny", not "insightful", pleas
Anyone in the accountancy/banking business would have a whole career of experience telling them that it is both common and ethical to get free money.
Seems like they'd obviously be the ones to fall for it. To the rest of us, the promise of free money sends up a huge red flag, but to them its just a part of normal everyday business.
The banks were altering the deal - pray they don't alter it any further!
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
HOW do you know that collection of the original deposit is final?
When the bank will allow you to withdraw the money out of your account, in cash, while mentioning you need "spending money" because you are leaving on an extended trip* to [insert name of country without extradition].
* Where "extended" >= statute of limitations for bank fraud...
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Do you know what you call a doctor if he pronounces you "perfectly healthy" but what he really means is there's an odd spot on your lung but it almost never turns out to be a rapidly developing cancer?
The defendant.
In other words, unlike the doctor, the bank KNEW that it was only provisionally cleared but chose not to inform the man of that rather important bit of information. It sounds to me like exactly the sort of "let's not worry about the impossible" that lead to the big financial meltdown.
I think in some cases it is not because they cannot see through the scam, but rather because they think they are safe. Consider that they receive all the money first, and then they transfer part of it on. It is not like they are paying somebody money before receiving their own share. But then after they have received money (possibly from a victim from internet banking phishing) and transferred part of that money to an account abroad, the original transfer is reverted.
Somebody who is in that position where they thought part of it through but forgot the part about the first transaction being reverted will have to play stupid. They cannot admit that they had some idea what was going on, because then they would admit to have deliberately taken part in the crime. Playing stupid may be unlikely to get your money back, but with a bit of luck it may save them from a sentence.
Not saying this is necessarily saying this is what happened in this case, just saying that these people may not be as stupid as it looks. One saying goes: "Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence", another saying goes: "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice". But in some cases it may actually be a combination of malice and stupidity, and it can be hard to tell how much of each.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Heh.
We use the same system in The Netherlands. Checks are completely antiquated ofcourse. But you know what? International bank traffic can have the ability to revoke wire transfers as well. So one day the money is in your account and you hand over the carkeys. The next day the car is gone to Poland or Russia and a week later, the wire transfer is cancelled. And if you already spent that money on a new car, the bank will happily put your account in the red with a 19% yearly interest rate attached.
Don't think that wire transfers from dubious banks in Russia or Africa are much better than checks. You could get a very nasty surprise that way.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)