Did BT infringe Proceeds of Crime Act in 2004

[goodwill]

Yes I think your correct in the way you describe the chain.

 

So who has the comercial relationship with the customer? Who has accepted responsibility for retailing the service?

 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 4.05.2005 SG-Greffe (2005) D/202091 Office of Communications Riverside House

 

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

 

Brussels, 4.05.2005

SG-Greffe (2005) D/202091

Office of Communications

Riverside House

2a Southwark Bridge Road

London SE1 9HA

United Kingdom

 

For the attention of:

Mr. Stephen Carter, Chief Executive

Fax: +44.20.7981.3333

 

Dear Sir,

 

II.1. NTS Retail Uplift

Ofcom underlines that providers terminating NTS calls (“terminating communications providers”, or “TCPs”) do not have a commercial retailing relationship with the customer making the call. It also recalls that under the current regulatory regime, BT is required to originate and retail calls on behalf of TCPs and pass the revenue after applicable discounts to the TCP, net of charges for conveyance of the calls on its network and for retailing those calls

(including, for example, the provision for billing and payment collection services). The so-called NTS Retail Uplift is the charge that BT can make to TCPs for the retailing of NTS calls.

 

II.2. PRS bad debt surcharge

Ofcom recalls that PRS calls generally have higher retail prices than other NTS calls in order to provide additional revenue to service providers, to cover, inter alia, additional costs of providing the service and associated content. It finds appropriate to allow BT, in addition to the NTS Retail Uplift, to retain a further charge to cover the extra bad debt costs and financing of working capital associated with PRS calls compared to other NTS calls.

On this basis, Ofcom estimates the appropriate PRS bad debt surcharge to be 3.03% of revenues net of VAT and discounts (but before payments to TCPs) and therefore proposes that BT is allowed to charge service providers no more than that percentage of the net retail call revenue for that PRS call.

BT has clearly accepted payment for "retailing" the service.

BT has always claimed it only takes a small amount for carrying the call and pass the rest on. This clearly was never true.

Why does BT insist the "customer" has to dispute the bill with the "service provider". If BT has agreed to accept payment for retailing the services in the UK, have they a legal duty to ensure those services do not contravine uk consumer/legal laws?

[Thermometer]

I think you, the customer, has to view BT as simply a 'billing mechanism' for premium rate services. They give you access to services in the same way that a credit card company can give access to service over the phone (instead of ringing a Premium rate number).

 

If you use your credit card to buy services which are not what you expect there are procedures for a 'chargeback' for any amount and even more protection on purchases over £100. But when you pay for a services via a premium rate phone line your network provider is not obliged (I think) to have any sort of 'chargeback' procedure, so you would have to pay your BT bill.

 

Now, in the case of rogue dialler, the situation is different. The Rogue Dialler has fooled you and BT! You don't even know you are making use of the service and, until BT is aware that there is a fraud I guess you are liable to pay them. I think the key question is if you do withhold payment but then BT keep insisting payment is required once it BT knows it is a fraud, what is the situation then? That is when the Proceeds of Crime Act you refer to may well come into play!

 

The problem is that no-one seems to have made any decision on whether BT is in breach of the Act and until it is settled in the courts (criminal or civil) who knows what the situation is?

 

I think it best to let sleeping doges lie - there are many other fighting the same case as you - let them take the worry and expense and you just enjoy the fruits of their labours if they win!

[goodwill]

I understand and agree with most of what you say but it doesn't explian some fundamental questions.

Please don't take umbridge at my questioning some of your remarks.

 

"I think you, the customer"

At what point did I become a customer ?

Who was I a customer of ?

 

 

"The Rogue Dialler has fooled you and BT"

It fooled me into down loading it but did that constitute any thing that could be described as any part of a legal agreement?

Did it fool me into handing over money for a non-existant service?

 

Did it really fool BT?

http://img304.imageshack.us/img304/1394/icinvestcolour1final2cy.jpg

Premium Media Comunications sl

under investigation 1st Jan 2004 onwards.

 

Eight months and several thousand identical complaints later BT are still billing the same number.

BT's original excuses used to justify demanding payment from the "customer" were.

"we have no way of knowing if the number was dialled by the customer or a rogue dialler"

Surely if BT are operating their billing platform on behalf of Telecom One it's their responsibility for ensuring it's protected from fraudulent use.

 

and

"we have passed the money on before we have recieved the complaint"

This was just plain false. BT were still passing money on after many thousands of complaints. BT's actions showed a reckless lack of the duty of care.

[Thermometer]

Goodwill, ok you can 'pick holes' because I used a 'wrong word'. I just don't know what you can expect to achieve by 'letting off steam' on this forum.

 

If you really have the courage of your convictions then sue BT, otherwise wait to see what transpires before you 'make your move'.

 

I don't see what else I can add.

[goodwill]

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

The Danish business identyfied in this BBC program was later convicted of an almost identical telecom fraud in a Hamburg court.

The following are the Majorcan service providers and the numbers they used that were responsible for 20% of all dialler related UK complaints throughout 2004.

They were all setup by the same group ncluding the Danish business man.

 

(

to moderator This is the contact infomation for the public taken from the Icstis web site. It is not personal details

)

 

Amara Amichi 2000 SL

0909 967 7600 to 0909 967 9299 = 1700

0909 967 9608 to 0909 967 9907 = 300

 

Quizir SL

0909 967 3544 to 0909 967 3578 = 35

0909 967 3579 to 0909 967 3598 = 20

0909 967 5000 to 0909 967 5099 = 100

0909 967 6060 to 0909 967 6459 = 400

0909 967 7100 to 0909 967 7599 = 500

 

Inversion Zarnoza SL

0909 967 7600 to 0909 967 8099 = 500

Cala De Plata SL

0909 967 8100 to 0909 967 8599 = 500

Mesa rotation SL

0909 967 8600 to 0909 967 9099 = 500

supplied by Amara Amichi 2000 SL

Middleton holdings ltd

0909 967 9100 to 0909 967 9299 = 200

0909 967 9608 to 0909 967 9907 = 300

 

Premium Media Communications

0909 967 2808 to 0909 967 2808 = 1

0909 967 2995 to 0909 967 2999 = 5

0909 967 3654 to 0909 967 3953 = 300

 

Jokomo Media SL

0909 967 3242 to 0909 967 3261 = 20

0909 967 0019 to 0909 967 0029 = 11

0909 967 0046 to 0909 967 0055 = 10

0909 967 0582 to 0909 967 0601 = 10

0909 967 2830 to 0909 967 2849 = 20

0909 967 2942 to 0909 967 2966 = 25

 

Telecolux SL

0909 967 3217 to 0909 967 3241 = 25

 

Ibero Latino De Telecomuniccaciones

0909 967 3002 to 0909 967 3006 = 5

 

[goodwill]

High-tech cops probe premium-rate Internet fraud - ZDNet UK

High-tech cops probe premium-rate Internet fraud

 

Published: 23 Jun 2004

"If it's only a few cases, then we can put it down to the husband or kids not admitting to surfing porn, but if 300 customers are saying the same thing about one company, then we can't ignore it," said Baht. "We can't work out what the problem is, so have recently started talking to the Hi-Tech Crime Unit so they can do a criminal investigation."

so did they?

From the Metropolitan Police Service.

 

Dear *******

 

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: ***************

 

I write in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 17/02/2007. I note you seek access to the following information:

 

* In June 2004 Suhil Baht, policy advisor at ICSTIS, said they had "started talking to the Hi-Tech Crime Unit so they can do a criminal investigation" One of the case Icstis had been investigating throughout 2004 concerned a group of companies registered in Majorca. They were using 3,500 premium rate 0909967**** numbers that were appearing on victims telephone bills. Could you please confirm that Icstis did supply all the details relating to the case. etc

etc .

 

Following receipt of your request searches were conducted within the MPS to locate information relevant to your request.

 

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

 

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted at Metroplitan Police Services.

 

RESULT OF SEARCHES

 

The searches failed to locate any information relevant to your request.

 

DECISION

 

I have today decided that access cannot be provided to the information you have requested as it is not held by the MPS. ICSTIS was working with the National High Tech Crime Unit (NHTCU). The NHTCU is not part of the MPS - it became part of the Serious and Organised Crime Agency - which is a separate law enforcement agency, but is exempt from the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

from ICO

26th February 2007

Dear *****

 

Thankyou for your recent enquiry.

 

The Freedom of Information Act requires all public authorities covered by the Act to respond to requests for information. Police Forces are public authorities covered by the Act. The National Hi Tech Crime Unit has now become part of the Serious Organised Crime Agency. SOCA is an authority that is not covered by the provisions of the Act and is not required to respond to requests for information.

 

I regret that we cannot suggest any other public authorities which may hold the information you seek.

 

Yours sincerely

 

*********

FOI Good practice Section

So what did Icstis tell the police?

Why aren't the thousands of victims entitled to an answer to this question?

 

 

[JOSH_IOU]

:)good by dojy large private company unalwful penalty charges.

[goodwill]

The Great Phone Call Con

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

 

The BBC Money Programme has identified one of the chief suspects in the rogue dialler scandal in an investigation into telecom fraud.

He is Danish businessman Morten Sondergaard Pedersen, 38, director of Premium Media Communications (PMC) and Sun Telecom, two firms based at the same address in Majorca.

Ms Taylor and 11,000 other complainants were charged by a ring of five companies based in Palma, Majorca, some sharing the same registered address.

Twenty per cent of the total number of complaints to ICSTIS about rogue dialling involved the Majorca companies.

PMC supplied technology to all five and took it upon itself to answer complaints from consumers.

ICSTIS investigated PMC and the other Majorca firms and decided there was insufficient evidence to take action against them.

Without giving them any backing, ICSTIS advised Ms Taylor and the other 11,000 to write to Majorca for their money.

Ms Taylor did write and got a letter back demanding full bank account details and a copy of her passport before her claim could be investigated.

Fearing she would be fleeced again, she declined.

Sun Telecom, meanwhile, had been involved in a massive rogue dialler swindle in Germany netting over 3m euros.

Last December, Mattias Meidow, a minor player in the fraud was convicted and a European arrest warrant for Mr Pedersen, believing him to be the brains behind the plot.

When Money Programme reporter Rajan Datar visited PMC, he was told that Mr Pedersen was away travelling.

In fact, Mr Pedersen had been arrested and his only travel plans involved extradition to Germany to face charges of masterminding the swindle.

For rogue diallers, you take your own precautions. Ensure you're NOT compromised - not bleat to a firm because they had the ability to make money from your errors. For virus attacks, you do the same - not look for someone easy to blame.

.

[goodwill]

In 2004 the regulator Icstis claims the problem of premium rate numbers appearing on peoples phone bills was huge.

http://www.icstis.org/pdfs/ActivityPlanAndBudget0506Condoc.pdf

A consultation issued by ICSTIS on 7 January 2005

 

Notwithstanding the increase recorded, there was a significant degree of underrecording in relation to complaints during the first half of 2004. As explained below, the volume of calls, mostly referrals by OCPs swamped our call-handling capacity. Each day around 500 of these callers were directed to our web-based information and complaints services. But for a few months, between 2,000 and 3,000 individual callers a day were failing to reach our staff or our web-service. At a time when the majority of contacts related to Internet dialler services and when a majority of these “services” were found to be in breach of our Code, it is evident that the total number of people affected by some form of PRS deception was considerably higher than the number recorded on our database.

ICSTIS Useful Terms

Icstis

useful terms explained

 

Originating Communications Provider (OCP)

Also known as 'Originating Networks', the OCP is a phone network (e.g. BT) that sends you your phone bill and connects your call from your phone through to its destination (the number you have dialled).

Phantom phone [problem] hits another village | The Register

2nd July 2004

 

A spokesman for BT insisted that the problem of premium rate phone calls appearing on customers' phone bills was "not widespread".

So why did BT apparently mislead the media as to the true scale of complaints concerning premium rate phone calls appearing on their customers' phone bills?

[rks99]

My take on this:

 

The contract was with BT for use of a telephony service.

 

Agreed, the (ab)use of this was done by an entity (trojan dialer) unbeknown to the OP. However all this resulted from a choice that the OP made,that is, to connect a computer to the telephone line. Now if ,as it is most likely, there was a lack of security understanding or user-error which led to the installation of a dialler, then the only person to blame is the person using the computer.

 

I think the OP should take responsiblity for something he did(use computer) and likely didn't do(follow good security protocols).

 

Sorry it's sounds harsh,but that's what I see.

[goodwill]

you enter into a binding agreement when you made the call

The contract was with BT for use of a telephony service.

 

do either of you know what a premium rate service is?

do you even know how they work?

 

have either of you got the faintest idea of the differance between making and paying for a simple phone call and requesting and agreeing to pay for goods and services over the phone.

 

 

buzby is obviously having a problem

[rks99]

Hey goodwill, if you're going to post a comment quoting someone else kindly have the decency not to change their words.

 

I think the OP should take responsiblity for something he did(use computer) and likely didn't do(follow good security protocols).

Sorry it's sounds harsh,but that's what I see.

 

your version:

Originally Posted by rks99

I think the OP should take responsiblity for something he did(illegal parking) and likely didn't do(read the signs).

Sorry it's sounds harsh,but that's what I see.

 

you sad person.

[Gino32]

[goodwill]

Hey goodwill, if you're going to post a comment quoting someone else kindly have the decency not to change their words.

thankyou rks99. Yes maybe I could have been clearer.

 

I remember a few years back I got into hot water with the council for not paying a few parking tickets.

ok so using rks99' analogy of using a computer on the internet

I think the OP should take responsiblity for something he did(use computer) and likely didn't do(follow good security protocols).

 

Sorry it's sounds harsh,but that's what I see.

to rks99 using his car on the road

I think the OP should take responsiblity for something he did(illegal parking) and likely didn't do(read the signs).

Sorry it's sounds harsh,but that's what I see.

 

did you pay the fines?

 

you sad person.

and less of the road rage

[rks99]

Yup, I had to pay the fines.

 

However, that you dug up my thread from the dead simply to get back at me for posting a comment in your thread is quite revealing.

 

But they do say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

 

As for the 'road' rage it may be true, but what do you have ?

now that would worry me.

[goodwill]

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

yup I had to pay as well

 

there is one thing that genuinley does confuse me

why do you (and others) believe the victims in the above BBC program had a contract or agreement with BT concerning Premium Rate Services ?

[rks99]

It's sad that anyone should be the victim of this rogue criminal enterprise.

But some lessons we all have to learn the hard way.

 

~I didn't know that you had to have a separate contract for using Premuim Rate Services.

[goodwill]

I didn't know that you had to have a separate contract for using Premuim Rate Services.

yes there are two sets of agreements.

One with BT to use and pay for using the line (the phone call)

and

one with the Premuim Rate Service supplier requesting and agreeing to pay for the content.

 

now there is another agreement between BT and the company supplying the premium rate numbers to the service provider but there is no commercial agreement between bt and the public concerning the sale of premium rate services.

[goodwill]

@ buzby and

rks99

 

BBC NEWS | Business | The Great Phone Call Con

you both say the tens of thousands of victims in the above BBC program have only themselves to blame for their loss.

 

I tried getting both of you to explain how you arrived at such a criminal freindly opinion.

 

It's sad that anyone should be the victim of this rogue criminal enterprise.

But some lessons we all have to learn the hard way.

what the hell are you on about?

[rks99]

Just call the MF who did this to you a b******d and try to get on with your life. You've been a victim of a crime and since the police can't/won't do much about it you hardly have a choice now short of going after the git yourself, hiring someone to do it or casting a spell :eek:on him (not advised herein).

 

Do remember however that he will get his dues one day.

 

And of course you'll be more careful next time.

[goodwill]

Just call the MF who did this to you a b******d and try to get on with your life.

 

I did contact them. Telecom One didn't appear to want the publicity. It turned out to be a nice little "goodwill" earner.

 

Did you ever appeal against your parking fines?

[rks99]

No I didn't appeal cause my mom,bless her, paid it off for me:).

 

But that's another story. it's getting late and my computer only wants to work in safe mode, which means no music, no games, no fun.

 

when it rains it pours...

[demon_x_slash]

SF,

 

Please edit your post to make it less libellous - intimating that the above person 'committed... etc.' unless they were actually convicted could result in this site's owners being sued.

 

EDIT: Please ignore - preceding post has been moderated