conned out of £4k

[JonCris]

i did not need the name to pay money in, only the account number and sort code. He said his name was David (wont give last name) but i did not have to give that to the bank.

 

Anyway - i did go in the copshop and they said basicly that because i offered it to him, it could be seen as a gift.

 

But can the police actually track who he was? I mean - if he has closed his account......

 

Of course the can with a bit of effort.

 

Go back to the nick & request the attendance of a senior officer.

Whether or not it is decided you DID give this guy the money as a gift is not for them to decide it WAS or even might be considered a gift. Your saying you have been conned they have to investigate as they keep telling us if an alledged crime is reported.

 

If still no joy go & see a solicitor & ask him/her to intervene with police on the basis that you will make a formal complaint.

 

PS Silly though you have been not getting a provable address it's heart warming to see that there are still trusting souls like you about in today's cynical world who are willing help those they perceive to be in dire straights.

 

Merry Xmas

[JonCris]

Rubbish its obtaining money by deception & they know it they are just fobbing you off. You must involve a solicitor

[JonCris]

roger I'm sorry but your comments are completely wrong.

 

The police investigate such allegations all the time.

 

If I borrow money from anyone for once purpose & use it for another then I have commited the offence of obtianing a pecuniary advantage by deception.

 

As for the evidence how do they know there is none until they at least make enquiries. If for example their enquiries where to reveal that there never were bailiffs knocking on the door (false claims which may be evidenced by this persons email) & this persons was making it all up (as now seems likely) then that is evidence of deception

[JonCris]

george They seem to have plenty of time to chase after berry pickers. The excuse that they don't have time is rubbish. They have plenty of time. The continually trotted out excuse about the amount of paper work is just an excuse. Witness the recent publicity about the local cooper who holds the record for the No' of villains he's knicked, something like 4-8 per day. How does he do it.......writes quicker maybe!

 

The fact is they love the paper work after all where would you rather spend your day, outside in all weathers risking life or limb or indoors in the warm at no risk & able to have refreshment at any time. It's a no brainer

 

Also like many other institutions they hide unlawfully behind the DPA all the time as an excuse not to act. I personally have had to threaten legal action more than once to make them reveal vital information about a 3rd party. One particular forces own solicitor conceded they where acting unlawfully because denying the info was effectivley perverting the course of justice

[JonCris]

Quite right I am only expressing my opinion. It is however based on some knowledge as having dealt with the police for over 30 years I can say that the policing in this country is much worse than it was even 10 years ago. As for those who gave their lives I see no link to what I referred too as a failure to patrol the streets but to opt for the comfort of the station & to suggest otherwise is pure humbug. I have police officers in my family whom I like & admire but have actually been told this is their preferred option, make an arrest & spend much of the day in the nick. Throughout the country there have been at least 3 recent murders which could have been avoided had the police done their job. The forces in question have had to issue public apoligies for their failure to protect these victims when they could have

 

Finally their refusal to investigate the alledged crime complained of here when we are constantly told they investigate ALL alledged crimes to justify arresting and charging Christians & berry pickers make a nonsense of such claims.

[JonCris]

 

Rubbish. I do not know any Police Officer who would rather stay in the nick than go out and patrol the streets. known a lot over the years have you This is what they joined to do. They all get frustrated by paper work. But like any job you will get those who simply can not be bothered and can not do the job properly. Yes it does happen even in the Police. They are not whiter than white and do make mistakes like every other human being. If those you have spoken to are say this then they wouldn't even bother to chase your berry pickers either.

 

The police do not investigate ALL alleged crimes Thats not what they claim when asked why the bother with likes of the berry pickers (they would never have time for anything else like rea l commited crime They don't or perhaps you don't keep abreat of current affairs). They need some evidence to begin an investigation and all the evidence available to us here seems to suggest a gift/donation upon request. As it stands at this time it would simply be a civil matter not a criminal one. The police have no jurisdiction over civil matters.

 

This sheds a little more light on the matter. BBC - h2g2 - Section 16(2)(a) of the 1968 Theft Act (England and Wales) - A203716

 

sandy12 Get some more evidence to support your claims if you can and they will then look into the matter. Rubbish it's not upto a member of the public to collect evidence, that the police's job. All they are telling you at this stage is it would really be a waste of yours and their time as it stands now because, as quite clearly pointed out, it is simply your word against his.

More rubbish. Most crimes only ever involve anyones word against another until they investigate the allegations.

[JonCris]

Not at all.

 

Yes I have known plenty over the years thank you, both personally and socially. Your sarcastic attitude is no help whatsoever. If you can't take criticism of your comments then don't provide them on a public forum. Pot & Black come to mind

 

sandy12 needs to provide something to support her allegations. Nearly all crimes have some evidence present or presented on which to base the investigation. More nonsense the poster has made allegations & that IS enough for the police to act (ask Tony Blair)

In cases like this what would stop anybody making such allegations againsts anybody else? EVIDENCE. happens all the time At the moment all that exists is a verbal and possibly written (electronic) agreement which is a legally binding contract. sandy12 needs to try and show that the money was lent and not given. No they don't they have made their allegations & it's upto the police to investigate to see if there is evidence to support the persons allegationsThe case would never get to court and that is not down to the police it is the CPS that make such decisions. How does anyone know unless it's investigated.

 

Have you ever thought that the problem may not lie at the feet of the police? After many years of spineless jellyfish descisions at the hands of the CPS many of them have also lost the will to carry on. They spend all their time gathering evidence and compiling court papers and files for either the CPS to pull out at the last minute or the case to be thrown out due to lack of evidence. Lack of evidence! Who's fault is that then the CPS!

 

EVIDENCE is what makes a case not the allegation. Particularly with fraud and deception crimes the physical and electronic evidence is crucial as no forensic evidence exsists. But what starts a case IS the allegation

 

I am not saying that the crime hasn't been committed. I am just telling it as it is not as it should be. We live in the real world now not the how it was or how it should be world. This is the real world. Under the Police Act if an allegation is made then they ARE required to investigate. Something they in common with the banks would like the rest of us NOT to know

 

If you want to blame anyone blame the government. Believe it or not most Police Officers are probably more frustrated than the public. It is caused by the target and figure culture that the government ram down all our public sector necks.

You still haven't commented on the police officer who managed to arrest hundreds whilst his fellow officers didn't. As I said was it maybe because he could write faster or what or was it because he wanted to do his job.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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

[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)

[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.

[JonCris]

No one will know anything unless the police at least question the guy & ask what he has done with the money.

 

90% of ALL convictions are based on what the accused says when questioned.