Community

What silly conclusions to draw from these issues!

I can't work out where there has been any fall-out: this is just a PR 'made up' for a headline.  I write this as both a Fintech and Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Bankers. 

Facts:

- people are being conned by fraudsters. 
- the people that are being conned instruct (in the main) their banks to make payments to fraudsters. 
- the banks making the payments MUST follow the instruction of their customers (it's the law). And the banks have paid millions in system developments to inconvenience us to ask us whether we are sure and aware of the potential for fraud; and then to check with us the account that is being paid too. 
- the problem is then with the bank that gets the money and pays this away to a fraudster.  They help this fraud and the fraudster because they do not properly know/ identify the fraudster who then 'runs away' with the money. 
- it is odd to read which banks have the biggest fraud levels from paying-out to fraudsters. This is published annually. This is massively skewed towards a small number of fintecs that have 'broken AML law'!!!! by not identifying these fraudsters properly.  
- it is all 'well and good' for the article to demand a "stepped change", but very wrong not to propose what that change should be. 
- that change MUST be to 'hold' the banks that open these accounts for fraudsters 100% liable.  The industry has named the biggest offenders. 
- let's pursue these banks with gusto and stop the fraudsters and thereby protect innocent customers.  
- this is not a 'PR game' for fintechs or bank, nor a cheap headline in an editorial summary of irrelevance / speculation - it is a real problem that needs real solution. Now. 

@Ketharaman Swaminathan - same answer.  The argument does not change, and no precedence is set based upon the minority of cases. Imposing your values, does NOT make the reality change.  

@Ketharaman Swaminathan - This is simply not the way that banking or consumer law operates in the UK, or at the UK regulators. Maybe in India (I do not know)! "Make the victim pay" - is cold, and encourages fraud. In risk management, one has to 'follow the money' and make the perpetrators of the fraud pay - and the people (receiving banks that have aided the fraudsters) through their negligence and non-compliance with AML/CTF law - should be the people that suffer the losses when the fraudsters cannot be found and the money returned. It is their responsibity to understand the nature of the funds that they pass to fraudsters.