[Closed] Vishing scam

I've heard of the keep the line open and await the callback scam and wouldn't fall for it. I feel sorry for the solicitor but in her position she needs to be more savvy when dealing with such large sums of (other people's) cash.

I'd heard of the trick before but not certain that I'd have suspected them otherwise. I still think I'd have called the bank later to find out more before I sent 75 grand

Yup I probably fairly convincing but I'd have checked before moving £750k I'd have checked for £7.50. 😀

Heard this on R4 earlier.
It seems the lesson to be learnt here is that if someone asks you to call another number, use another phone line.
She does seem rather screwed now though.

[quote=sharkbait said]Heard this on R4 earlier.
It seems the lesson to be learnt here is that if someone asks you to call another number, use another phone line.

Or call another non-bank number first to flush out the scammers.

Scammers try to push the buttons to engage your panic (in this case) or greed (the other common one) reflex. They are bastards & try to make otherwise sensible people act rashly without thinking it through. It is understandable how she fell for it, given her previous financial pressures, so I feel sorry for her.

That said, I don't think anyone in financial trouble themselves should be in charge of other peoples' money so I think there's a professional failing there somewhere.

I listened to the interview with her on MoneyBox and it was very distressing to hear what happened to her. These scams are increasingly complex and she was trying to protect her clients money - for that she has lost her career and been made bankrupt.

There seems to be a complete lack of control on money movements and combined with the fact the police can't be bothered to investigate more than 99% of on-line frauds there are few if any protections for the public or professionals like the one in the interview.

That said, I don't think anyone in financial trouble themselves should be in charge of other peoples' money so I think there's a professional failing there somewhere

Yes. It's obvious isn't it.

Best way to get anyone out from financial pressure is to prevent them from earning their living.

That's just genius.

This event has nothing whatsoever to do with her personal financial situation, not sure why it was even mentioned really.

could this scam be as bad as pressure sales from double glazing salesmen in your face...

hmmmm makes you wonder though.

The basic scenario "quick move all your money" doesn't really hold water, for me, but then I used to work for a bank. And "we'll call you back tomorrow" is just daft, if the account's at risk it's at risk right now. So it'd not have got me but I must admit I'd no idea that calling another number could connect you back to the last person, closing a call then phoning a number you know is good would seem like a solid precaution to most people. Everyone knows about cold calls.

So I suppose... The trick itself, I could be caught by. But the scam was unconvincing. A lot of financial scams are like this, the game is clever but the play isn't.

This event has nothing whatsoever to do with her personal financial situation, not sure why it was even mentioned really.

You're saying that personal financial pressures can never affect someone's professional judgement?

These scams are frighteningly sophisticated. Solicitors are being targeted big time. Mrs's firm were close to falling for one. The cashier received an internal email from a partner saying move cash to this account straight away, we are in trouble if the transaction doesn't happen right now etc. Even the style and wording of the email looked as it had come from this solicitor. It was only down to the cashier going to see the partner for a counter signature that the scam was discovered. Had to feel sorry for the woman in the story, but suspect she could have been a bit smarter , but these guys are incredibly sophisticated.

The phone trick would catch most people. However being asked to transfer it in blocks of 99k to different accounts she should have spotted.

But if the law society were aware that layers were being called about this every day why was an alert not being sent out? It is difficult to put the blame 100% on her because scammers are surprisingly good at their jobs

The basic scenario "quick move all your money" doesn't really hold water, for me, but then I used to work for a bank.

I have never worked in a bank. But it still doesn't make sense to me.

The bank rings you and tells you your account is at risk ...

"We'll sort it out then, you are the bank. Whatever needs doing, just do it"

Really can't see why people fall for these scams.

You're saying that personal financial pressures can never affect someone's professional judgement?

No.

I said...

[b]This event [/b]has nothing whatsoever to do with her personal financial situation, not sure why it was even mentioned really.

As you quoted.

Really can't see why people fall for these scams.

Her situation was mentioned because falling for the fraud meant that she lost her career.

I hadn't heard of the not hanging up scam. I'd link to think that I wouldn't have fallen for this. I'm sure I would have been asking them lots of questions as I have done this with the odd phishing call and this I think would have rumbled them. But I don't know that I wouldn't have fallen for this

The law society as ever seem to be mainly interested in its self not its members. I suppose had they backed her than any fraudulent solicitor could have pulled this stunt off with a mate.

The story that reflects the worst though is the people scammed by a fake solicitor during a house transaction. The law society refused to accept any liability for despite the fake solictitor being lised on the their website

http://www.legalfutures.co.uk/associate-news/bbc-money-box-investigates-conveyancing-fraud

I'd no idea that calling another number could connect you back to the last person, closing a call then phoning a number you know is good would seem like a solid precaution to most people.

The description in the article isn't quite right. It's nothing to do with a 'delay'.

When a landline phone call is made, it's not disconnected until the [i]caller[/i] hangs up. You can put the phone down on a caller, then pick back up and the caller will still be there. Wouldn't be a great leap for them to then play a dial tone down the line to sound like it's clear.

This seems like an even more elaborate fraud than the vish scam alone - the ability to target it, identify bank, mark concerned --- but tellingly the ability to deal and hide the significant proceeds successfully.

I guess it's easy to judge - I really don't know if I would have fallen for the call, mainly because I know this nuance of the phone system - But I can see it being part of a long con - happening when a bunch of issues are carefully lined up - then the call arrives. This being the culmination of the sting vs a lucky strike cold call -- perhaps a bit of ID theft was pursued earlier, make the mark sympathetic etc..

It seems sad she stands to lose so much to a bank enabled fraud - I thought client accounts were bonded (in effect) maybe they pursue her personally for the sum(!)

A basic protocol which some agencies followed (back in the day) was 'TTT'; Call TIM (speaking clock) to ensure 'tone was true' before calling in info from prior call.

Could be a simple defence to this scam - when in doubt - but those that know this probably wouldn't fall for scam. But it is a simple message for someone like the SRA to convey to those at risk.

Although sadly you now have to pay for TIM. Guess operator would be just as good and free..

Be careful out there!

ps some posters mentioned her personal situation is immaterial - just saying it;s the reference to the her personal situation that makes me wonder if it could have been a campaign, I hope the authrities investigating consider all these points.

I thought client accounts were bonded (in effect) maybe they pursue her personally for the sum(!)

The line scam is reasonably well known, thing is in her position you need to be aware of things like this and be ultra suspicious. She had clients money in trust, she was not an unsuspecting member of Joe public. The victims here are her clients who reasonably placed their trust in a professional who was anything but. It's up to the bank to keep funds safe, if they believed the account was at risk it could have been frozen, by moving the funds she completely messed up.

That's because you have the dispassionate eye of an STW know-it-all rather than a real person who might make a mistake when put under pressure

No. I thinks it's because I know that banks don't ring you up and say...

"Oh my lord.. Quick! Move your money! Someone's stealing it !!!"

If there is a threat, THEY are in a far better position to deal with it than I am.

I think it's possible to overlook the persistent deception this could require. The sums involved demonstrate the abilities of the fraudsters.

IMHO This simply cannot be a lucky strike cold call on a solicitor in ABCshire. The vish scam played it's part, but was only a technical point in the scams execution - each point until the final disconnect vish had to be carefully put in place.

The defrauded party only really had to act in (possibly coerced or deluded) good faith - the nuance of the phone disconnect was simply beyond their reasonable knowledge. Perhaps not any more since this public example..

If you're already struggling to pay your mortgage and then someone tells you you're going to lose your clients' money (and therefore your clients) that's going to affect your judgement more than someone who can afford to be out of work. Pretty obvious, I would've thought.

You're saying that personal financial pressures can never affect someone's professional judgement?

Whether she was struggling to pay her mortgage or not, £750k isn't the sort of money a sole trader can afford to lose. So no, financial pressures shouldn't make a difference unless she was embezzling the money. Which she wasn't.

Our financial controller at work got an email the other day from our CEO asking her to make an immediate payment to a bank account, all the email formats / footers were correct as was the transfer form. She didn't do it as they both work in the same office and she went across to double check.

The scammers had profiled the company, knew who people were, had spoofed email addresses. Very sophisticated attempt to defraud us.

don't ring you up and say...
"Oh my lord.. Quick! Move your money! Someone's stealing it !!!"

Maybe. But banks do ring you up and say there's been a suspect transaction on your account and then ask you to tell them your password etc, and when you challenge them they tell you to call back on a certain number. All of which could be duplicated by a scammer to harvest the info to get into your account. So the customer can't assume that the bank will always be behaving in a secure way.

Things I do not get.
1)Why on earth, as the call recipient, can you not hang up on a landline call? Surely this is an easy fix?
2)I thought under money laundering rules every bank account has to have a verified ID? Can't they find these people?

[quote=toys19 said]Things I do not get.
1)Why on earth, as the call recipient, can you not hang up on a landline call? Surely this is an easy fix?

You can hang up, but the line is not cleared. If you pick the phone up again then you're still connected to the call originator if they haven't hung up. Changing the way that works is probably a massive infrastructure change for the telecoms suppliers.

You would thing there'd be some sort of digital trail indicating where the money had gone and who's got it.

allthepies, yes I appreciate that, its somewhat stating the obvious to say "you can hang up" did you think I imagined an invisible hand holding me back?
The second part of your response is an assumption, it might be a massive infrastructure change for sure, but you dont know that.

In fact a little google discovers its a digital issue and easily fixed.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2014/03/bt-changes-uk-phone-call-clearing-procedure-stop-fraudsters.html

We've had a a couple of occasions when somebody has arse-dialled our landline phone and there's absolutely nothing you can do to be able to use your phone again other than shouting really hard in the hope that the person at the other end hears it; you can hang up but hours later they'll still be there.

I've never had one of these scam callers, but on occasion preventing the above would be reason enoough to sort it out for me!

Thing that gets me, the technology surely exists to find out [i]exactly[/i] where this money went...
I'm pretty sure it didn't end in a chap in a striped top & phantom mask walking out of his local Nat West with £750k...

Technology made it possible so why the hell cant it be reversed to solve it...

Of course, the witch hunt for this unfortunate solicitor is of more importance.

Whether she was struggling to pay her mortgage or not, £750k isn't the sort of money a sole trader can afford to lose.

She didn't pay the lost her insurance did. But she lost her job

2)I thought under money laundering rules every bank account has to have a verified ID? Can't they find these people?

That is what shows they knew what they were doing. With 20 minutes 2/3 rds was unrecoverable. I suppose they keep moving it between accounts until they get it to a country where the laws and rules make it easier to hide money. Or they can buy an asset that's harder to trace

Maybe. But banks do ring you up and say there's been a suspect transaction on your account and then ask you to tell them your password etc,

Yes, that's what banks WILL do.

What they never do is ring you up in a panic and tell you to move all your money to an account that's not even yours.

I honestly cannot fathom how anybody can fall for this.

The rest of the scam may be very sophisticated (money laundering, research etc) but this bit requires a massive amount
I

She didn't pay the lost her insurance did.

No they didn't:

Her professional indemnity insurers have refused to pay

Presumably, her clients have lost out?

Her legal liability to look after her clients money. No money, and no insurance to cover her legal liability. Personal savings? remorgaged her house? How much is she down, and how much are her clients down?

[quote=nedrapier ]Presumably, her clients have lost out?

Her suspension has enabled her clients to have access to the Solicitors Compensation Scheme which has now refunded their losses.

give or take a bit you could end up US$40m worse off thru faked emails:

“On June 5, 2015, the Company determined that it had been the victim of a criminal fraud,” the company writes in its 8-k form. “The incident involved employee impersonation and fraudulent requests from an outside entity targeting the Company’s finance department. This fraud resulted in transfers of funds aggregating $46.7 million held by a Company subsidiary incorporated in Hong Kong to other overseas accounts held by third parties.”

[url] http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/ubiquiti-networks-email-scam-40-million/ [/url]

on a more mundane note only heard about the keeping the phone line open thing a few months ago needs more publicity

I honestly cannot fathom how anybody can fall for this.

Not everyone is as perfect as you.

Bit of a childish dig, from a moderator 🙄

It's not about being perfect, it's simply about understanding how banks work.

I would hope a solicitor looking after three quarters of a million quid of someone else's money would be informed enough not to move it all to some random account that wasn't even hers.

No bank would EVER ask a customer to do this. And she should know this. As should everyone really.

Don't you think that's a reasonable level of competency to expect from anyone looking after such large sums of other people's money ?

[quote=nealglover ]It's not about being perfect, it's simply about understanding how banks work.

Which not everybody does, not even solicitors who don't specialise in banking - I can't see that there is any particular requirement to understand how banks work on that level to do the job she did - she just put money in and took it out.

Maybe it is a reasonable level of competency we should be asking for, but I don't find it terribly hard to understand how even somebody intelligent who deals with large sums of money might not have that level of understanding - it's probably not something that's ever bothered her. Though unlike you it seems, I can empathise with people who aren't as perfect as me 😉

I would hope a solicitor looking after three quarters of a million quid of someone else's money would be informed enough not to move it all to some random account that wasn't even hers.

As a professional that presumably deals in money transfers fairly frequently, it's down to you to keep up your skillset as a matter of professionalism.

Sorry, I have very little sympathy here. Fortunately, it sounds like her clients have been reimbursed. Frankly, I hope she doesn't ultimately fail financially as a result of a single mistake, but I won't be losing any sleep over it.

I'm with nealglover & superficial on this one, there is just no reason on earth that a bank would ask you to transfer money from one account to another, I can see that some people might easily get tricked into doing so but if you are a professional in part getting paid to look after other peoples money your professional body are right to get you struck off

[quote=Dickyboy ]I'm with nealglover ... on this one

I'm not sure you are

I can see that some people might easily get tricked into doing so