> Be careful.
> There is a scam where people put money into your account.
> You send the money back to them, only to they've applied for a loan in your name that you still have to pay back, but you've given away the money.
> Make sure it is you who initiates contact. Verify!
That’s a terrifying scam!
Of course after you send that real transaction "returning" the extra amount, you find that the check from them didn't clear (or that the transfer didn't happen for whatever other reason; a modern variant uses remote desktop to trick the victim into thinking a large amount of money is in their account when it's not).
Though with a three week delay that's probably not what's happening here.
If a deposit is fraud, the banks are accountable to reverse it when discovered (inside applicable statutes of limitations for financial fraud), and you as account holder agreed to that when you signed up. Only rarely do banks on the ends have to eat the amount instead of one of the account holders.
No money given to you incorrectly through a bank is yours (unless your lawyers are better with more staying power than theirs, because in practice, contracts are basically irrelevant when litigated with sufficient will and skill).
Banks in the UK are on the hook if it's a scam induced transfer.
That's why with any payee over a few $hundred, I first send a tiny test ACH transfer and get them to tell me that it worked and how much. It'll take hundreds of those extra efforts to outweigh just sending one big payment astray.
Also, since there are now so many scams with advance payment, if by surprise some large check or pmt lands in my acct, I'm definitely NOT sending it back with any speed, IDK what kind of pitiful story they tell. I'll transfer it to a new interest-bearing acct (possibly by cash w/security guard), then hold it pending full identification of source, actual error, and the outcome of any investigation.
I'll hold onto it both because it may be an error that would be right to return, and because I don't want to get caught out having to return something I already spent, but the presumption that I'll just send it straight back is no longer valid.
But back to my point - if you for whatever reason get compromised to such a degree that other people can sign off things with your BankID, you're basically completely fucked. At least for probably 99.99% of the cases.
This is because the law recognizes that sign-off as if you did it. And if some other did it, you've breached the ToS - which more or less states that you, and you only, can know the password, and it is your responsibility that said password is hidden / unavailable to others. Your signature and confirmation, your loan.
The most common victims of these cases are spouses and close family members.
But again, these things do differ from country to country.
Consumers in Scandinavia are not responsible when scammed unless they've acted with grave misjudgment or ill intent.
There was even a case in the high court to cement this right in Sweden this summer specifically for BankID.
https://www.konsumentverket.se/aktuellt/ko-har-ordet/2022/ko...
https://www.domstol.no/globalassets/upload/hret/avgjorelser/...
Consider the case where I have a small checking account in which I deposit my child's allowance, the child discovers that this account has $10,000 in it for some reason, and, like a child, goes on a spending spree. Is my child responsible for exercising some measure of restraint with this money? They are, in the eyes of the bank, authorized to access this money for their own use, but suddenly you think that I am obligated to return thousands of dollars that my child spent on minecraft skins or something because the lender wants to lower the friction for loan applications?
The lender should be generally SOL.
1. Apply for loan under Bob Smith's name using stolen/forged identity
2. Company providing loan will only send to a bank account in Bob Smith's name
3. Provide the company with Bob Smith's real bank account details
4. Message Bob Smith, "oops, we accidentally sent you $x in error! please send it back"
5. Bob Smith now on the hook for proving they didn't apply for a loan
Bob fell for a con by transferring money to someone
So even if the loan is forgiven to bob (which it should be), the bank could argue that those funds that were transferred were bob's own money, not the loan
And your scenario doesn't match the original:
> There is a scam where people put money into your account.
The constrained message length and lack of edit feature on Twitter means you have to forgive people if their wording isn't exactly as accurate as you might want it to be.
If the person does look up the details and just transfers the money back to the loaning bank, that doesn't cost the scammer anything.
You don’t need to prove that you didn’t create the loan. It’s up to the company to prove that it was you. Having private information isn’t enough. At most you need to file a police report to expunge it off your credit report.
$250k is also the amount that involves the Feds. Most scammers won’t hit that amount since they know the state/loc police don’t have the capability/resources to investigate electronic funds transfer type scams.
Creating a bank account (fully, not just the application to do so) generally requires going into a bank branch. At least in Australia and UK anyway.
Going into a bank branch would mean real potential risk for a scammer, as they'd then be caught on camera. And if the bank figures out they're a scammer before hand... potential police waiting.
My point being that the post you're replying to makes a good point. A scammer could do a bunch of things that aren't all that risky, compared to creating an account in person... which seems like it would introduce a _lot_ more risk.
Regular banking is pretty indifferent to the future profits of a new account that can pay out cash as it examines risk, while a loan salesman's interest in believing he has a sale..
Also pushing $250k to a bank/sweep account won't set anything off because the risk to FI handling the money is minimal. There's minimal risk it can be clawed back and the risk is on the FI that pushed the money. If you pull the money, thats a different story due to rules around ACH clawbacks. I assume fidelity lets you fund your account with no max though a push either ACH or Wire but to pull, you're limited to $50k or a lower amount per day. If you try to transfer that money out from a pull, it will get locked down till the ACH clawback period expires.
Not true, wheres the bank branch for ING? https://www.ing.com.au/
I did say generally requires going into the bank in person though. ;)
Maybe GP's description mixed two similar frauds, maybe both variations exist
If I defraud somebody on behalf of Wells Fargo you'd better believe they won't cough up any cash for the cause. You are not responsible for third parties interacting with each other without your knowledge or permission, and the fact that your name was dropped somewhere doesn't make that any less true.