Did BT infringe Proceeds of Crime Act in 2004

[goodwill]

Hi my family were victims of the infamous "rogue dialler" scam of 2004.

The actual case was investigated by the BBC after they were tipped off as to the organised nature and scale of the fraud.
BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

I've been doing further research and I believe the regulators and UK premium rate industry knew or at least suspected the services BT were billing for were infact fraudulent.

I would be interested in hearing from anybody who were victims of the "rogue dialler" scam.

thanks goodwill

[buzby]

The trouble is, as a participant in the scam, you bore a responsibility to ensure that your computer did not download the dialler, and a failure to do this left your line vulnerable. Therefore it didn't matter whether it was your PC doing it automatically, or you dialling it personally - it was not a 'crime' in the accepted sense. If you did not avail yourself of protection, either through software or by asking BT to bar permium rated calls, you alone bear the responsibility of the costs incurrent by your phone line, even if someone broke into your house and called the Speaking Clock in Hong Kong for 14 days until you (say) returned from holiday.

As a consumer you also have to bear full responsibility for your actions, and if a court held that you did not take the appropriate steps to ensure this did not happen, no action against BT would succeed. If the fees paid to the scam number were interecepted before payment, then clearly you would be due a refund of those charges not paid, but the cost of the call itself would not be recoverable, only the premium element.

Of course, BB users don't 'dial' anymore so these scams are mostly on the way out.

[goodwill]

Who on earth told you that rubbish?
How deep does your research go into this subject to arrive at such a bizarre conclusion?

I would be interested in hearing from anybody who were victims of the "rogue dialler" scam.

thanks goodwill

[goodwill]

Originally Posted by buzby

As a consumer you also have to bear full responsibility for your actions, and if a court held that you did not take the appropriate steps to ensure this did not happen, no action against BT would succeed.

no, no, no, it is completely the responsibility of BT to ensure they are not in an agreement with criminals to bill for fraudulent services.
You clearly do not understand the consumer/criminal laws relating to this topic.
The only questions that really matter concerning the Proceeds of Crime Act is:
Were the services fraudulent? If yes then the bill's were not legal.
Did BT suspect or have reason to suspect the services were fraudulent? If yes then BT were guilty of serious criminal offence.

BT faces huge refund claim over dialling scams Independent, The (London) - Find Articles

BT faces huge refund claim over dialling scams


Independent, The (London), Mar 19, 2005 by David Prosser
BT IS FACING a county court judgment in favour of a customer who is disputing the phone giant's refusal to pay refunds to thousands of people who have lost out in "rogue dialler" scams.

[buzby]

Sorry - this is just ONE speculative action, and you can be sure each will be argued by BT (a case of 'don't shoot the messenger'). I agree that they should not be allowed to profit from scams, but this isn't a perfect world. Anyone who had a rogue dialler was similarly negligent, so the prospect of BT losing this outright would be very slim.

You also overlook the fact that BT is not 'in agreement' with anyting other than another telco, whom the scammers may have had a relationship with, or further links down the chain. As a communications facilitator, BT cannot choose which networks to do business with - OFCOM saw to that, so on that argument alone, they'd be blameless.

[Rich44]

I have to say I agree it is everyones responsibility to maintain security on their PC and besides its not like BT sold these people the premium number BT just have a relationship with other Telcos to pass costs on in the same way that have a relationship with the end users.

At least with the advent of broadband these awful scams are dying away, I never understood people who left their modems plugged in all the time esp as if there was some kind of spike down the phone it could very well kill their PC.

I wish anyone involved in trying this the very best of luck in attempting to get their money back but imho you're on a hiding to nothing it doesnt stop me keeping my fingers crossed for you though

Good luck

[goodwill]

Originally Posted by Rich44

I wish anyone involved in trying this the very best of luck in attempting to get their money back but imho you're on a hiding to nothing it doesnt stop me keeping my fingers crossed for you though

Thankyou, now let me try to at least convince some that they were the victims of a mass targeted premeditated criminal fraud.
In fact there is now clear evidence that BT and Icstis intentionally misled the media and victims as to the true nature and scale of the fraud.

I believe there are two important issues to bare in mind:

Standard UK consumer laws.
From HM Customs and Excise.
"Although the 'premium rate' calls originate to Spain, the service is being invoiced from British Telecom therefore standard telecomunication rules apply.
The place of supply of telecomunications services as defined in N741 12.9 is classed as being where the customer belongs. With the supplier and customer belonging in the UK, the supplier must account for VAT at the standard rate of 17.5%."

Did the internet services BT were billing for exist?
Can a bill for non-existant "goods and services" be regarded as a legal bill.
Were the services being legally promoted and marketed?
Does a single phone number on a bill constitute proof that a legal agreement to purchase had been entered into?

Standard UK criminal laws.
From the City of London police web site.
City of London Police - Economic crime department
"At what point in a fraudulent act is it considered ‘complete’?
If a fraudster causes funds to be moved out of the control of the victim, the fraud is complete, though the funds may have never been in the possession of the fraudster, and the victim secures their recovery immediately".
Did BT have any reason to suspect the services they were billing for were fraudulent?
If they didn't know they were comitting an illegal act.
If they did know or had reason to know, they were committing a criminal act.
......................... ....................
BT had an agreement with Telecom One to pass the money onto them as soon as the number was dialled.
This agreement has nothing to do with the public. BT could claim the fraud was 'complete' at this point but the fraud would have been committed against BT.
BT has a system inplace to identify and protect them from fraud being committed by companies like Telecom One. It's a system that identifies "Artificially Inflated Traffic". It's written into the agreement that if BT "suspects" an occurance of AIT they can withold payments.

This is what I was told by a director of a large UK telecom company

'A spokesman for BT said the company could not refuse to carry calls on its network unless it could be proved that a crime had been committed. "As much as BT would like to act on a mere suspicion of potential wrongdoing, unless we have very concrete evidence it is very difficult to stop calls or withhold money," he said.

This is absolute nonsense. BT's interconnect agreement with other carriers allows it to withhold money on any suspicion of wrongdoing. The relevant bit of the interconnect agreement is Annex E, and it can be found here: http://www.btwholesale.com/content/b...ia/nannexe.rtf

Personal experience is that, even when they're wrong, it takes upwards of a year to go through the process and extract monies due. Most people don't bother. Had BT used the process above in 2004, the problem would have been nipped in the bud.

[goodwill]

The victims in this BBC program were targeted by "service providers" registered in Majorca all using numbers supplied by Telecom One limited.
All the service providers were registered by a single group of business partners and all share the same addresses and Icstis contact details.
They were responsible for 20% of all dialler related complaints in 2004.
BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

The companies involved and numbers they used.

BT
had an agreement with Telecom One to bill for the services.
Telecom One
supplied the 3,500 numbers and agreed to carry the services.


( PERSONAL INFORMATION OF INDIVIDUALS REMOVED )

The "PERSONAL INFORMATION" was Icstis contact details for victims to contact

The other names and addresses were from Spanish Companies House and had been edited to hide the names


Icstis recieved numerous thousand of identical complaints from the public concerning the above service providers and numbers.
Some if not all had been under Icstis "investigation" from the 1st Jan 2004 onwards.
BT were still insisting the bills were legal and continued billing into 2005.
Who now believe they were the victim of a "scam"?

p.s. I contacted Telecom One in 2005 and suggested "considering the high level of complaint" they should return my money. They were only too pleased to.

[goodwill]

buzby could you please explain what you mean.
I particulally interested in the "participant" part.

Originally Posted by buzby

The trouble is, as a participant in the scam, you bore a responsibility to ensure that your computer did not download the dialler, and a failure to do this left your line vulnerable.

thanks

[buzby]

Therm: Ill mannered, moi? They are certainly not ill-considered. But then, I wasn't writing for your benefit. Chill out man.

Goodwill, the 'participation' refers to that fact that your PC through a failing in its security, made calls to a service that made money from those who did not take precautions. It is already well established that anyone who does not take precautions is just as culpable as if they dialled the caulls themselves... saying "My PC did it" is not a defence.

You would not be liable for call costs if someone intercepted your line external to your premises and ran up a bill. If you left your front door open and they used your telephone socket, you would be. This is precisely the situation with the PC, you effectively left the front door open. Whether BT benefited from it is irrewlevant. that's a matter for the regulators and the contract BT has with its suppliers, your issue is far more basic. A judge could reasonably ask;

1) If you have no need to call Premium Rated numbers, did you not ask BT to block these call attempts from your line (a free service) if you felt worried that your phone bill could spiral out of control.
2) If not, why not?
3) What measures did you take to prevent your PC being infected with a trojan file that would effectively make premium rated calls on your account?
4) If not, why not?

I dislike the idea of ANY telephone number being used to generate income for any third party over and above the connection costs. However, it was not my decision, and I took precaution to ensure it would not happen. Since dialler scams have been running since 1998, I think that's more than enough notice for people to take action to protect themselves. Failure to take such actain means they have a duty of care to themselves, not try and pass the buck on to a suppler that was only indirectly involved.

[goodwill]

goodwill,

I am not sure that issuing of the originals bills alone would amount to a breach of the Act. But, if BT continued to pursue customers for payment after ICSTIS closed down the lines for fraud then that may well place BT in breach of the Act.

What happened in your family's case? Did you pay the bill?

Hi Thermometer.
It's a long story and I will be brief. I payed the bill bar the part Iwanted to dispute. BT disconnected all out going calls and left a recorded message to their victims service desk.
My wife discovered this when she tried to check on my daughter who has MS. She panicked and paid the bill over the phone.

When I discovered this I decided to investigate the scale of the problem.
Some of my findings are on post#8.
I contacted the company BT had their billing agreement with (Telecom One Ltd) and "suggested" they returned the money because of the serious nature and true scale of complaint. They returned it. They didn't appear too happy to go to court.
Immediately after the cheque was cashed I sent my findings to a producer of the BBC The Money Programme. He thanked me for "unlocking" the story.
BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

Here's a piece from Jeffrey Robinson a renowned expert on fraud and money laundering.
Neil Herron: Investigation: This man wants to hit BT with a baseball bat


Now buzby, really.

It is already well established that anyone who does not take precautions is just as culpable as if they dialled the caulls themselves...

Where are you getting it from? Who "established" it? Who told you this? Did you read it somewhere? Where? BT maybe .

BT is a private company. BT is solely responsible for their billing platform. It is the responsibility of BT, the service provider/carrier (they have the billing agreement with) and the regulators to ensure the billing practices and "goods or services" they intend billing for comply with existing UK consumer/criminal law.

Under existing law the onus of proof that a legal sales agreement and agreement to purchase has been entered into is solely on the supplier.
If BT want to claim on behalf of that supplier that the bills are legal and must be paid the onus is on BT to prove:
The customer agreed to purchase. Was the customer aware of the service?
The customer agreed that price. Did the customer see the price?
The "goods or services" actually existed and were fit for purpose. Did any of the tens of thousands of people who complained actually recieve any "internet service" that remotely complied with UK consumer law?

The fact members of the public may not have the most up to date virus protection does not affect their basic consumer rights.

[buzby]

Why continue to go round in circles? Just answer the questiuons raised!
Did your PC make the calls? Just as you are expected to take control of your children and be responsible for them, how is it you have no responsibility to ensure your PC is similarly well-behaved?

If I was a BT Shareholder, I'd be first in line to demand that you paid the bill you ran up, and suggest you take full control of a device that tried to access your phone line without your knowledge. Why should BT have to monitor each and every call you make to be sure it's legitimate and you really wanted to make the call?

Sorry - if you have a car, you take responsibilities for your actions whilst behinf the wheel. It's no different for a PC and a keyboard. If you don't take the precautions, you pay the price or suffer the consequence. Bullying unconnected third parties because of your failings (to my mind) smacks of a cop-out, and for all this 'legal sales agreement' stuff, you enter into a binding agreement when you made the call - or the machinery controlled and maintained by you did. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Should the matter come to court, your culpability would be the first to be explored, and the fact you're blaming everyone else but yourself!

[goodwill]

Why continue to go round in circles? Just answer the questiuons raised!
Did your PC make the calls?

I asked it last night if it had been surfing porn sites behind my back and it wouldn't tell me.

Just as you are expected to take control of your children and be responsible for them, how is it you have no responsibility to ensure your PC is similarly well-behaved?

I guess it's just got into the wrong crowd. But if BT has any suspiscion it's been involved in any criminallity it should report it to the police.

If I was a BT Shareholder, I'd be first in line to demand that you paid the bill you ran up, and suggest you take full control of a device that tried to access your phone line without your knowledge.

I would say go boil your head or see me in court.

Why should BT have to monitor each and every call you make to be sure it's legitimate and you really wanted to make the call?

There's the problem, they should do, it's called operating a billing platform.

Sorry - if you have a car, you take responsibilities for your actions whilst behinf the wheel. It's no different for a PC and a keyboard. If you don't take the precautions, you pay the price or suffer the consequence.

If the honesty of BT's billing platform relies on every computer in the UK having the most upto date virus protection then I suggest the problm lies with BT's billing platform.

Bullying unconnected third parties because of your failings (to my mind) smacks of a cop-out, and for all this 'legal sales agreement' stuff, you enter into a binding agreement when you made the call - or the machinery controlled and maintained by you did.

Bullying? It wasn't me that said give me the money or I'll cut your wires.
Telecom One had a revenue sharing agreement with their Majorcan service providers to carry the services.
Telecom One had a revenue generating agreement with BT to bill those services.
Show me this "binding agreement".

Why is that so difficult to comprehend? Should the matter come to court, your culpability would be the first to be explored, and the fact you're blaming everyone else but yourself!

Yes, why were BT so reluctant to chase the "bad debts" in court. Were they chicken. Why did they decide to sell the "debts" to NCO?

Buzby if you google "bad debt surcharge" with "BT" you may discover that Ofcom and the EU commission accept that BT will have problems billing the public for UK premium rate services because they have no agreement with the public concerning the services.
The only agreement that exists (if in fact there ever was one) is between the customer (me) and the "service provider" who is marketing and promoting the service.
Now that would make it rather difficult for BT in court.

[MrShed]

I have to agree with Buzby here, and GW I do not think you are gaining any kind of credence by your rather stupid answers to valid questions. I fail to understand why you feel that you are not liable for the bill. YES, you should be able to then claim against the person or persons responsible, but this is not BTs responsibility, it is your own. Ignorance is no defence to the law, and you clearly have a legal obligation to pay this bill.

And I do not understand what kind of "agreement" you are talking about that BT needs with the public. BT have an agreement with the customers to provide phone services in return for fees for those services. What other agreement does it need?

GW, do not get me wrong, I sympathise with your position, and yes I do feel you have been wronged. However, I believe there are fundamental flaws in both your position and your attitude with regards to it:

- You are picking the fight with the wrong third party.

- You have to accept that at least SOME(albeit maybe small) of the responsibility lies with your failure to see that the number had been changed.

- I am disappointed with the fact that you post on a public forum, and then proceed to show a complete lack of respect for any point of view that happens to not be the same as yours. Disagreeing is one thing, but you basically seem to hold the opinion that Buzby has no right to hold the view he does.

Either way, I wish you luck.