conned out of £4k

[rogerebaker]

It doesnt matter if it was a gift or a loan or even if there was a contract the issue here is was sandy deceived into handing over the money.

 

For the police to accept this as an investigation In simple terms Sandy needs to be able to point the finger at exactly what pursuaded her to hand over the money and this was a lie. There needs to be something more substantial than just a feeling.

 

The fact that he has disappeared adds weight to this belief but is not going to be enough. Sandy also states in her original post that the man kept in contact for a few days thanking her. If this was a well practiced con man I would be very surprised at this.

 

In my opinion I think at this point youve probably lost the 4000.00. If you are prepared to spend some more money on solicitors. Private investigators etc etc you have a reasnoble chance of tracking the bloke down. Having tracked him down Im not sure it puts you in an all together better position as with any civil debt if he hasnt any money wheres it going to come from.

 

It is of course possible that having financial difficulties means his phone and computer has been cut off. He may surprise you in the future and repay the money as promised, a long shot but you never know.

 

If he is a conman he will by his very nature be greedy and he will come back for more. If he does then thats the time for the police.

 

As an after thought I am fairly sure that conversations on MSN are logged somewhere on the hard drive of your computer. I remember regretably reading some that my kids had participated in many months before and they certainly werent aware they had been stored. Someone with a greater knowledge of computers may be able to help you.

[stan5131]

The point is..... Sandy12 is going to have to hire the services of a computer expert, then a private investigator to find him, then hire a solicitor to take civil action who will spend many hours trying to investigate and find all the evidence. The police just need to make a call to his bank, they fax over name and address; police bob round and have a chat with this guy and presumably check his background. Then report back to Sandy12 to confirm whether or not in their opinion fraud has been committed or whether it is a civil matter. I see everyone's point here, I really do, but surely the police can help out a bit here.

[blacksheep1979]

The point is..... Sandy12 is going to have to hire the services of a computer expert, then a private investigator to find him, then hire a solicitor to take civil action who will spend many hours trying to investigate and find all the evidence. The police just need to make a call to his bank, they fax over name and address; police bob round and have a chat with this guy and presumably check his background. Then report back to Sandy12 to confirm whether or not in their opinion fraud has been committed or whether it is a civil matter. I see everyone's point here, I really do, but surely the police can help out a bit here.

 

The thing is if it is a civil matter then the police don't work on private cases. Its also not just a matter of them phoning the bank - they will probably need to obtain a court order and for that they need due cause/evidence which so far is limited/wanting. To them it doesn't look like a case of fraud/being conned its not like the op was offered a service or product and never received it she freely offered money to someone who was in need of it. TBH it looks like it is gone.

[marshyc]

Correct

[JonCris]

Oh! dear.

 

The police ARE supposed to investigate on somebodies WORD they do it ALL the time. In many matters it's what brings the evidence to light or not as the case may be.

The fact that this person alledges that they have been deceived into given/loaned or whatever to the other person IS sufficent for them to investigate.

 

The fact that this person may have claimed to need the money for one thing & used it for another IS in itself a crime & it's called obtaining money by deception

 

Incidently I know full well how the police & the judicial system works

 

The original poster should see a solicitor & they might be able put bomb under their backsides.

[Bigmac versus]

Stansfield i tend to agree with your view that the police could at least check up on this guy, but as black sheep and marshy say they will need a court order to do so and for that they need some sort of evidence, so whats being said is that the police have there hands tied due to lack of evidence at moment. I would like to think that if there is a hint or suspision of a con taken place then they the police would have some power to at least run a background check on this chap for previous and then maybe uncover some evidence. Still personally feel they could help more than they have rightly or wrongly thats my opinion.

[stan5131]

Thanks for that George. I also think that JonCris is not being given the credit he is due. I have read many of his posts and he is usually right. He is very knowledgable on aspects of the law and would not be suprised if this is his profession.

[JonCris]

Suggest to the bank that they may be guilty of money laundering because if its proven that a crime has been committed then the 4K would be considered 'proceeds of crime'. They can't claim ignorance because the poster has been in & told them. That should get a few backsides twitching

 

Incidently if the poster still has the original sort code they may be able to ID the branch of the bank used.

[Guest NATTIE]

joncris- I am quite shocked by what you are suggesting but just so I am sure, what do you understand by money laundering? Is the suggestion that the money has come from proceeds of crime? Is the suggestion that the OP has taken part in criminal activities? The only thing that saying to the bank about it is that the OP would be under suspicion in relation to money laudering aspect of what you have said. I have never thought you would sink to level of telling someone to blatantly lie, given this situation.

[demon_x_slash]

I think JonCris means that the money MAY NOW possibly be considered proceeds of crime, as sandy claims she was deceived into handing it over (Ob. money by deception). Whether the bank will see it as a crime, or a civil matter, is precisely what is being debated at the moment.

[marshyc]

Thanks for that George. I also think that JonCris is not being given the credit he is due. I have read many of his posts and he is usually right. He is very knowledgable on aspects of the law and would not be suprised if this is his profession.

 

According to his public profile it is his profession which (in my opinion) sheds some light on his attitude towards the police.

 

I think we all probably agree that a crime has been committed but it is the way that it has been carried out which makes it difficult. This is precisely why these people operate in this way. It is not just coincidence that they gain somebody's trust and drop hints about financial problems. They are reliant on the trust built up in order to gain the funds on offer. They will not ask for it which makes the deception point very difficult to prove.

 

The bottom line is sandy has spoken to the police and given them their version of events. It is from this that sandy has been informed it would be word against word. If sandy has told them the same as us then I can see no reason why it would be any different. From their point of view it is now a civil matter without any evidence to the contrary. sandy offered the money the man did not ask for it. I think we are letting what we think happened get in the way of what actually happened (facts). One thing the police must never do.

 

The money laundering suggestion may also lead to some problems for sandy with frozen accounts and possible cifas entry on their credit record. May be not but is it worth risking it just to get one over on the police. I think not. Also can't see how the money could be considered proceeds of crime without a crime having being committed, the bank would probably only advise sandy to report the matter to the police and obtain a crime reference number, and the whole process starts again.

[blacksheep1979]

The fact that this person may have claimed to need the money for one thing & used it for another IS in itself a crime & it's called obtaining money by deception

 

Incidently I know full well how the police & the judicial system works

 

The original poster should see a solicitor & they might be able put bomb under their backsides.

 

How do you know the money has been used for something else? You don't as the op has not been able to contact the person. They may well have been in debt and used this to pay off said debts.

[JonCris]

Thank you Demon that is precisley what I mean.......I do wish some folks would read my posts before commenting & deciding to insult me. The PO is not guilty of money laundering they are the victim.........It's the bank I refer to

 

Also, unlike some, who only have the company mantra to rely on I understand fully what is meant by money laundering & have used the threat of reporting it, on behalf of another, against an unco-operative bank with success in order to recover monies paid to a 3rd party who in turn was channelling monies to a major [problem] operation.

 

I have commented on the original post & whether or not they choose to follow it is upto them as my advice remains the same.........seek advice from a good solicitor. Preferably one who has a criminal practice because the chances are they will have relationship with the local nick

[JonCris]

How do you know the money has been used for something else? You don't as the op has not been able to contact the person. They may well have been in debt and used this to pay off said debts.

 

I don't & neither will anyone else until it's investigated but the fact that this person has disappeared with 4K does not bode well & is a cause for enquiry.

 

The simple fact is that no matter what is being claimed or the police are saying (without any evidence I might add) if an allegation of a crime is made they ARE duty bound to investigate.

 

They may not wish too but they are required by law to investigate ALL allegations of crime as they keep telling us when matters such as the cherry pickers comes to light.

 

As for the money laundering I made mention of it to prove that it is possible to have these people co-operate. As one of the guilty parties the bank would be very foolish if it did freeze the account in the full knowledge that the bird had already flown. If the account holder suffered as a result they would lay themselves open to litigation.

[rogerebaker]

Money laundering !!! you have really got to be joking.

 

Handling stolen goods is not relevant as no goods have changed hands its an electronic transfer and no actual property has been stolen.

 

The only offence anyone could possible commit would be retaining a wrongful credit S24A theft Act. and that falls at the first hurdle as regard the bank as nothing they have done is dishonest and they havnt received a credit to wrongfully retain.

 

If I walked into a police station and stated the banks have been deceiving me into paying 35.00 for many years and as far as Im concerned its a crime do you think the police would / should investigate it. No I dont think so.

 

There must initially be some credible evidence to indicate that a crime has taken place.

 

The OP appears to have abandoned this thread and frankly I dont blame her, shes probably confused.

[JonCris]

What makes you think only goods have to be involved for there to be money laundering. It's the transfer of money (the proceeds) that constitutes money laundering & ignorance is no plea. To be guilty of money laundering they don't have to have been aware at the time & this is specific to the Act & is a matter of considerable dispute as it places a great burden on what in most other circumstances would be considered innocent pawns. However having been told by the victim what may have happened they are required to report it.

 

As for the banks the day might come when their actions are deemed to be not just unlawful but illegal.

 

I agree the poster may well have left because of much of the ill-informed advice they have received. Things like THEY need to gather any evidence & produce it BEFORE the police can act. That's the police's job & no others. In fact if they did do that THEY could be accused of commiting a criminal offence such as harassment

[Guest NATTIE]

Joncris, I have read many of your posts and we have crossed each other before and we have also seen each other on the same side but the OP knowingly gave or rather transferred the funds to the other person who disappeared and cut all contact. Joncris, I do not insult you and I would hope we both would not move towards petty jibes at each other after all tis the weekend and that means petty bickering time:D I value your opinions please value mine because I read what I saw in your post and maybe it is not what you had meant. Not everyone reads some threads in the same way. If you felt I was insulting you then I apologise. I think the advice is sound in seeing a solicitor as it does sound complicated.

[humbleman]

is this for REAL, Sandy12 has not been on here for 4 days

[JonCris]

natwest Sandy did NOT knowingly transfer anything if it was a con.

 

Sandy thought is was for one thing when it looks like it was for another. Something they won't know until the police investigate the allegations.

 

PS it ain't complicated at all. An allegation of a criminal act has been made & the police are duty bound to investigate........period. Just ask Tony Blair or the Cherry Pickers.

 

It works like this, crime is commited, allegations are made, police investigate, evidence is discovered or not as the case may be, charges are laid, or not, trial takes place & if convicted an order for restitution is applied for.

[JonCris]

Sandy if your still out there here's something you my wish to send to your uncooperative bank manager.

 

Dear Sirs/Madams, Account Number Sort Code

 

You will recall that I visited the bank to advise you that I think I may have been the victim of a confidence trickster to whom I arranged the transfer of £4,000 to their account via the branch.

 

As I foolishly undertook this transfer myself and cannot of course pursue restitution from the bank I have requested the assistance of the branch in helping to identify this person with no success, being quoted the Data Protection Act.

 

I would respectively remind you that the DPA is not to be used to conceal a criminal act, alleged or otherwise and to do so renders that organisation liable

 

I would also respectively remind you that now you are aware of the alleged fraud the proceeds transferred may now constitute the proceeds of fraudulent activity by this party.

 

I would also remind you that knowingly or otherwise it is illegal for you, under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to handle transfer, or arrange assets derived from criminal conduct. By doing so, you may be in violation of sections 327 (Concealing etc), 328 (Arrangements) and 329 (Acquisition, Use and Possession) of criminal property.

If you do not assist me I will file a formal complaint against you with your head office and my local police.

 

Please note a copy of this letter is being forwarded to my member of parliament.

 

I await your advices at your earliest convenience

 

Yours faithfully

 

Feel free to amend cut & paste

[tim2718281]

I think what posters are trying to do is judge the situation from the information posted here.

 

I think what you're trying to do is say the information posted here is sufficient for the OP to make a formal complaint to the police, which they will investigate..

 

The underlying point is, the content of the phone text messages and the MSN messenger messages will shed some light on what happened. And the police can obtain this content with the necessary warrants.

 

Tim

[marshyc]

Wait for it folks.......... I agree with JonCris;) The OP must seek the advice of a good solicitor. If the OP is still around that is. May be they didn't think it would open such a can of worms though.

 

However, it still remains the FACT that this money was wilfully handed over to a seasoned con artist who would be fully aware that this type of issue would occur. They have been very careful in not directly asking for funds and only divulging information when asked. This way it makes it very difficult for the point of deception to be proven.

 

When a crime or otherwise is reported to the police the initial investigation takes place when the alleged victim or witness is questioned. It is from this questioning that the basics for a crime report and further investigation are obtained.

 

As mentioned previously if the OP has told the police the same as we have been told then how could they see anything other than it being a civil matter?! They use the FACTS not what they presume.

 

Tony Blair says a lot of things, do we believe everything he says?! He is so far removed from what really goes on as are all politicians. They do not live in the 'real' world as the vast majority of this country do.

 

Who would the police obtain a warrant against? The OP? The con man? Where is he, who is he? They also need sufficient cause to obtain a warrant which going from the FACTS they do not have.

 

It is the FACTS that make the case a crime or not and it is the questioning of the victim/witness to obtain these facts which is the start of the investigation process. In this case that is where it ended due to the details provided by the OP. That is why the OP will need to provide further information/evidence to substantiate and support her allegation.

[JonCris]

Sorry & with respect frankly I'm getting fed up with people claiming to understand the law & how it SHOULD operate when they don't.

 

Victims are conned into handing over money (willingly) all the time. Yet the police still investigate when later allegations of deception are made & it is they who gather any evidence not the victim. What can the victim say other than "I handed the money over officer because I was led to believe" etc

 

As for Tony Blair I mention him because an allegation was made that he swore at the TV making remarks about the Welsh. This brought about a full investigation by the Zcar of the traffic taliban.

 

I also mention the cherry pickers because it appears the police only had the word of some caretaker that they had taken the berries yet they still investigated as they ALWAYS claim they are required to do (which is actually true but only when it suits them apparently)

[marshyc]

Exactly. They questioned the caretaker and from this it would have been apparent that a crime, in this case theft, had taken place. Be it berries or not it is still theft. Should they turn a blind eye to certain thefts then?

 

In the OP's case the questioning uncovered the fact that they had wilingly handed the money over having presumed it was required. The con man did not ask for it or directly tell the OP what it would be used for. Where is the deception?

 

This isn't so much a debate about the law more so the procedure and jurisdiction of the police.

 

T'is you JonCris who is failing to see the FACTS in the case and this is all the police have to go off.

 

If you can explain to me how the deception took place here then I would be quite willing to hold my hands up and say ok then. But I doubt you could as it was all done by the OP themselves and not at any request of the con man.

 

Just to clarify I do think that a crime has been committed but it has been done in such a way to make it difficult to investigate from the initial evidence available.

 

I too am getting fed up now. I think we will have to agree to disagree as none of this is helping the OP. If they are still checking back.

[JonCris]

It wasn't apparent until the police interviewed the cherry pickers who being honest folk & thinking they where not doing anything wrong probably readily admitted taking the berries. Upto that point it was only the word of one person which started the manhunt

 

I'm sorry your missing the point again. For the police to investigate the OP only had to make the allegation of a crime for there to be sufficient cause for action & I don't care if they did hand their money over willingly, at the time, until they do investigate they will not be able to say one way or another if a crime has been committed.

 

Again no one will know if a deception took place unless they investigate the allegations. The deception would occur if they claimed they wanted the money for one thing whilst all the time intending to use it for another. For example if after investigating it was found that there never was a bailiff knocking at the door that would be sufficient for a charge of deception.

 

They keep telling us but you seem to ignore, that the law requires they investigate ALL alledged crimes.