Bank fraud or Syndicate at work?

[baker123]

sir next time may transaction ulit. i recommend wire transfer. its safer i guess.

wow thats some bad news. regarding the phone tapping thing. it is quite possible. but they would need the phone that PLDT or line men use for checking on our phone lines. probably syndicate.

your bank should be held liable as they have confirmed the cheque for payment. yun nga lang walang written proof of this. lam mo naman sa law. you need written proof that they (the banker) really did give the go ahead. so i would say 50/50 ang lagay. but if the manager helps you out on this. very good then.


good luck on the case.

balitaan mo kami sa gagawin ng bank.

[Alpha_One]

Did the fake "customer" use a telephone line of a legit one? Baka naman nagpa-panggap. At any rate, sindikato yan na involved sa identity fraud.

Friends, this was carried out professionally by a syndicate and has kept us furious trusting the banking system we have.

The entire financial world (and even the whole economy, for that matter) hinges on trust and good faith. Money is worth what it is because you (and everyone else) trust it to be worth that much.

[Walter]

I said this before. Never accept a manager's check on a non-banking day and hour.

Very true. Most businessmen should know this. Never be taken over by greed.

[Walter]

sir next time may transaction ulit. i recommend wire transfer. its safer i guess.

Yes, wire transfer would've been more efficient. I was wondering why the establishment agreed to an MC wherein wire transfer would've been safer.

[Walter]

One MO would have the syndicate would have a legit MC made at the bank then cancel it at the last minute before transacting with the victim.

[fortuner13]

bro I think alibi lang ng bank na na tap yun phone nila, na experience na namin yan in our bzness (construction supply), mudos operandi is may tao sila mag cacanvass ng construction material mga 100K +++ written on a piece of paper with bogus company name, after quoting the price, ask nila contact person n phone number, pag alis ng tao nila, may tatawag sayo(I assume yun mastermind yun), kunwari tatawad pa , so after negotiation , sasabihin sayo ONLINE niya payment sa bank , kukunin niya acct number mo ,so papayag naman tayo kasi nga online muna b4 releasing the goods, pero ang gagawin nila is they will make a deposit using CHECK NOT CASH (stolen or acct closed check), so DITO marami nagkakamali when confirming sa bank, pag tawag sa bank kadalasan ask lang natin if mas pumasok na certain amount o wala, MALI din ng bank sasabihin sa atin f may pumasok o wala PERO hindi naman nila sinasabi if CASH or CHECK yun dineposit unless we ask. on our part muntikan na, CHECK yun dineposit so nun tumawag ulit yun mastermind asking if ok na payment n ask nila pwede na kunin yun goods , sinabi ko na check naman yun binayad so antay ko pa mag clear b4 release, sagot nila ok balik na lang sila if cleared na, after 3 day acct closed pala yun check n expected hindi na sila bumalik

[number001]

It could be easily perpetuated, now that PLDT and et al. subcontracts some repair work to outside contractors.

[ryan17]

This scam could have been prevented if the goods were not released until the check (even if it was a manager's check) had been deposited first and allowed to clear. I'm surprised that this sop was not observed.

[LAcars]

Hi again. Thanks for your input.

The goods were released based on the fact that the banker confirmed the authenticity of the check issued by the other branch. We also asked our banker what if the customer decides to cancel the check after issuing it to us, he said they will need to return the check to the issuing bank upon cancelling, hence we relied on this information.

Our banker is not denying that he assisted us to confirm the check.
But, they ( bank ) are stating that we should have requested the confirmation in writing...fine. If we were not given a confirmation from our banker, we would have done the necessary steps to get a proper confirmation ie. "in writing."

If bank phone lines are tapped, its a breach on their security protocol isnt it? Then all banks should limit their transactions over the phone ie. confirmations , credit check etc....this is a major bank.

I understand its an uphill climb to hold the bank liable, but hey, its their image at stake too as they gave a confirmation. What good is the manager's word then? They should have rechecked the information provided to them. The sad part about it is that the check number was not even a proper check number, it was a mixture of numbers compiled.

If the manager asked us to send a request in writing, we would have done so.

Now the news is that they are requesting a report from pldt which I doubt is ever going to indicate that its their fault for fiddling with secured lines etc.

And by the way, the telephone line of the issuing branch was a legit one. It was just tapped.

[C24]

It's s.o.p for the bank to ask for the name and authority level of the person they confirmed the check w/ and they have to fax the cheque to verify the signature.