Fraudsters wipe out pensioner's savings, Nedbank offers just R20,000 'goodwill gesture'

sefeddt said:
The question should be the recipient account where the money was transferred to, it simply cannot just be withdrawn at an ATM. Any large deposits are required to be flagged. I highly doubt the funds were transferred into a long established account so another flag should have been a significant sum deposited into a recently open account which according to legislation had to have been through FICA which is South African legislation enacted to fight financial crimes like money laundering, fraud, tax evasion, and terrorist financing. It requires "accountable institutions" (like banks, estate agents, and attorneys) to verify their clients' identities and keep detailed transaction records


What can be deemed a suspicious and unusual transaction? – FIC

www.fic.gov.za www.fic.gov.za
Click to expand...

So Discovery is the real shady ******* here.
 
Sensorei said:
It's not your bank's responsibility for pay for your stupidity if you voluntarily handed over your secure information. Very nice of Nedbank to offer her R20,000 in goodwill. They owe her nothing.
Click to expand...


Banks are ruthless. They 100% would not have paid her a dime if they thought they did not bear part of the responsibility here.
 
JerryMungo said:
That's a bit of a stretch, the article doesn't include any of that info.
Click to expand...
The story is all over. She installed a fake SAA app which gave the scammers remote access to her phone. Tragic, and very sad indeed. But Nedbank was neither negligent, nor in a position to prevent the transactions.
 
PlanesTrainsAutomobiles said:
But I guess the ultimate question is, can they be held accountable for not having done so? And are they then responsible for refunding her 100% of her loss because they didn't do that?
Click to expand...
Not the full amount no, the fraud started as her fault. However I would have demanded that a full investigation take place as to what steps the banks took in their legal obligation to detect it and take steps, this obligation on banks etc is not a nice to have it is a responsibility. The time taken by Nedbank to reply and compensation amount offered to her is laughable.
 
sefeddt said:
Not the full amount no, the fraud started as her fault. However I would have demanded that a full investigation take place as to what steps the banks took in their legal obligation to detect it and take steps, this obligation on banks etc is not a nice to have it is a responsibility. The compensation amount offered to her is laughable.
Click to expand...

So you are basically saying blame should be apportioned and if it is determined that the bank was responsible for e.g. 50% they should refund her half of her losses?
 
Sensorei said:
It's not your bank's responsibility for pay for your stupidity if you voluntarily handed over your secure information. Very nice of Nedbank to offer her R20,000 in goodwill. They owe her nothing.
Click to expand...
Not quite, it's why banks etc had to develop methods to address this and report to the Reserve Bank that it had. It's also why their staff have to familiarize themselves on a yearly basis by passing a module exam
 
Sensorei said:
nor in a position to prevent the transactions.
Click to expand...
Disagree... 1. If I add a new beneficiary I'm required to confirm via biometrics. Maybe she was coerced into doing that over the phone. 2. If there's a largeish transaction to a new beneficiary it doesn't clear immediately, I've had a couple of instances where it took like 12 hours to clear, even FNB to FNB. After phoning the bank and asking "why is it not instant FNB to FNB as advertised" we were told "because it's a large amount and you haven't sent to this account before". This was for R65000 and a different time R125000... so no... Standard bank SHOULD have stuff in place to catch things that look like fraud ESPECIALLY with how soon they called them.

sefeddt said:
Not the full amount no, the fraud started as her fault. However I would have demanded that a full investigation take place as to what steps the banks took in their legal obligation to detect it and take steps, this obligation on banks etc is not a nice to have it is a responsibility. The time taken by Nedbank to reply and compensation amount offered to her is laughable.
Click to expand...
What's the point of FICA if they can't trace the accounts/funds and get them back?! like goodness we have to jump through so many hoops for FICA "to prevent fraud" yet here's a clear case where FICA should have been able to at least assist in getting back a large portion... especially the single 900k transaction should have gone into a holding state.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It always blows my mind that when something like this happens and someone "loses" there are people who make themselves feel good by going "shame... your fault" when there are things that are supposed to be in place to help. Next time it might be you, maybe not the exact same circumstances but ish happens.
 
I use my Tablet for banking. When I'm done banking I go Airplane mode. No SMS or anything else comes through.

My phone has no Banking apps
installed. **** scammers.

I loathe thieves. Especially ANC ones.
 
The_Ogre said:
You can have an open bond account with zero balance. People do this to have immediate access to a large sum of money (which appears to be the case here due to the presence of an Access Bond facility).
Click to expand...
She won’t make that mistake again lol. Close old accounts.
 
icantchooseone said:
my elderly mom fell for the courier scam ( pay R18.72 in fees ) and they took 16k out her Discovery credit card . she got 4 smss of 4k each and called Discovery within a minute . she lost that 16k . ive seen some people saying if its credit card fraud you can get refunded from your bank . not true
Click to expand...
I've had multiple fraud attempts against a cc , everyone refunded. Only time they won't is in the case of pin or proof of presence.
 
JerryMungo said:
Banks should not allow 24x7 access to your life’s savings via a mobile phone.

We’ve sacrificed security on the altar of convenience.

IMO get a banking phone (preferable iOS) that you keep powered off. Take it with you by all means but don’t carry the bank in your pocket and use it for gaming and messaging and browsing and email and… and… and…
Click to expand...
Don't put life savings in a immediate actionable account. The bulk should be in investment or notice, that will stop it. Keep current only what you need or even rotate a credit card ( 57 day interest free ).

People made choices, there are risks to such.
 
Kosmik said:
Don't put life savings in a immediate actionable account. The bulk should be in investment or notice, that will stop it. Keep current only what you need or even rotate a credit card ( 57 day interest free ).

People made choices, there are risks to such.
Click to expand...
I know people who do work for the banks... they say a shoebox under the bed is safer. lol
 
neoprema said:
Something is not right here. I mean starting with assuming a business would make a Whatsapp call but also the way things progressed, and the apparent way the money was taken. None of the banking apps just let you pay money without verification. Inter-account transfers maybe, but payments is sus. This was either an insider-threat or the person is not saying exactly what happened on that Whatsapp call that lasted 20 minutes and/or what she installed or did on her phone.
Click to expand...
That's what I was wondering, on my FNB and Capitec acc I can't do any payments of any kind on the app or on
online banking without using my iPhone biometrics to authorise it first.
The victim said this:
"I did not authorise the transaction. I did not add the beneficiary. I did not provide an OTP. I did not provide a PIN. I did not provide biometric verification. I did not approve the payment. I was only informed after the money had already left my account. There were no calls or emails to say that my account had been compromised. I had to inform them!"
JerryMungo said:
Banks should not allow 24x7 access to your life’s savings via a mobile phone.

We’ve sacrificed security on the altar of convenience.

IMO get a banking phone (preferable iOS) that you keep powered off. Take it with you by all means but don’t carry the bank in your pocket and use it for gaming and messaging and browsing and email and… and… and…
Click to expand...
Indeed but the banks don't give two shts about security just as long as they can't be held liable.
For instance FNB makes the default limits on each new virtual card you add R250,000, if they actually were proactive about protecting customers and they applied even a modicum of common sense that limit would default to being a very small amount.
But no they don't give a sht about that because it’ll be your fault if your account gets cleaned out for whatever reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X