Hamilton Accies scam

[Peevemor]

I'm unsure about this. Given that they need 2 signatures on any cheque over £1,500 it seems strange that they didn't check large transfers with a second person within the club.

I'm treasurer of an association and over the past few weeks I've written 3 cheques to myself totalling about £800. We had equipment to buy on the internet and instead of using the association's bank card, I used my own account which issues a one-off, virtual card number for each on-line transaction (therefore much more secure), then reimbursed myself. The guy who used to look after our account (who knows me well) has been shifted to another branch, and the new wifie phoned our president to see what was going on. He'd already okayed what I was doing so was able to explain. For me that's the bank doing it's job.

Whether they have a legal obligation to carry out such checks is the issue.

[vuefrom1875]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can’t believe I’m saying this but this does not sound like it is in any way RBS’s fault.
It sounds like Hamilton put a complete idiot in charge of their finances.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Something 🐟y here 😙

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The bank said that they'd contacted Hamilton several times before the incident to recommend tightening up their security arrangements - presumably they thought that a single person with that level of authority was a risk too. If Hamilton ignored that and left the bank with a single contact to verify transactions then that's their failing too.

But what was the point of checking with the person who was making the transactions?

[CapitalGreen]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Is he not Stokes agent as well?

Well "technically" he is forbidden from acting as an agent but yes he represents Stokes.

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But what was the point of checking with the person who was making the transactions?

That's my point - presumably prior to the incident the bank had contacted them to say "here, Hamilton, there's only one authorised contact on this account and it's the same guy that's making the payments. Don't you want to add someone else we could ring if we spot something fishy?". It seems Hamilton's response was "eh,naw, it'll be right"

They can't just phone some random at the club if he / she isn't listed as an authorised contact. Hamilton even complain in the article that the bank divulged info to their chief exec after the incident as he wasn't listed as an authorised contact!

[Arch Stanton]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But what was the point of checking with the person who was making the transactions?

Yea, but they wouldn't know who made the transactions. They would use a contact number and if that person said all was OK then they would know the transactions weren't fraudulent, which they weren't.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But what was the point of checking with the person who was making the transactions?

It may be that was the only point of contact Hamilton had given the bank? Surely Hamilton should have had better systems in place than they had. Can you not set up a maximum transaction value for internet transactions? Or daily maximums?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's my point - presumably prior to the incident the bank had contacted them to say "here, Hamilton, there's only one authorised contact on this account and it's the same guy that's making the payments. Don't you want to add someone else we could ring if we spot something fishy?". It seems Hamilton's response was "eh,naw, it'll be right"

They can't just phone some random at the club if he / she isn't listed as an authorised contact. Hamilton even complain in the article that the bank divulged info to their chief exec after the incident as he wasn't listed as an authorised contact!

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yea, but they wouldn't know who made the transactions. They would use a contact number and if that person said all was OK then they would know the transactions weren't fraudulent, which they weren't.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It may be that was the only point of contact Hamilton had given the bank? Surely Hamilton should have had better systems in place than they had. Can you not set up a maximum transaction value for internet transactions? Or daily maximums?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The bank will have contact details for each signatory. To call and speak only to the person making the unusually large transactions serves no purpose.

[Rocky]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The bank will have contact details for each signatory. To call and speak only to the person making the unusually large transactions serves no purpose.

Not sure what signatories have to do with an online banking product - if it's been set up as a single authorised user (signatory) then it's just the same as setting up a cheque account with a single signatory.

[Ozyhibby]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure what signatories have to do with an online banking product - if it's been set up as a single authorised user (signatory) then it's just the same as setting up a cheque account with a single signatory.

I’m pretty sure one of the newspaper report said he was the only person authorised to deal with the bank although possibly just the Internet side of things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure what signatories have to do with an online banking product - if it's been set up as a single authorised user (signatory) then it's just the same as setting up a cheque account with a single signatory.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I’m pretty sure one of the newspaper report said he was the only person authorised to deal with the bank although possibly just the Internet side of things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Accies are making the point that, although only one person had internet access to the account, 2 signatories were otherwise required on any cheque over £1,500 - therefore there was a safeguard in place for cheques but not internet transactions.

The account holder isn't the person with internet access - it's the club with the chairman being legally responsible. The bank will have had contact details of the company chairman, secretary and treasurer, together with any other person authorised to operate the account - ie. the signatories. That's where they come into it.

The bank would definitely have had the means to check on the transactions with someone else, the big question is whether they were legally obliged to do so.

[jgl07]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Don’t think anyone has been charged for the Malary Martin scam though 😀

I heard that an apparent 16-year old with a laptop and a former Scotland manager were 'helping the police with their enquiries'.

[Renfrew_Hibby]

So are Hamilton knackered? Are they doomed for the drop and maybe decade's in the wilderness of the lower leagues? Or will the money be reclaimed and they carry on making our top flight look even more Micky Mouse than it need be?

[IWasThere2016]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So are Hamilton knackered? Are they doomed for the drop and maybe decade's in the wilderness of the lower leagues? Or will the money be reclaimed and they carry on making our top flight look even more Micky Mouse than it need be?

Hope so - I'm on that scenario with a certain Patrick Power

[CropleyWasGod]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

So are Hamilton knackered? Are they doomed for the drop and maybe decade's in the wilderness of the lower leagues? Or will the money be reclaimed and they carry on making our top flight look even more Micky Mouse than it need be?

They're not doomed. They will have to be very careful over the next couple of months, cash-flow wise, and try to avoid relegation on the park. However, if they struggle, and have to push the admin button before the end of the season, it will be a 15 point penalty and almost certain relegation.

[IWasThere2016]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Yup. Rumours on here of brown envelopes, gangsters etc when this scam first came up. Wouldn’t be surprised if it was an inside job somewhere along the line.

Would love to know more about the apparent gangster link... have read elsewhere that all of their youth players are represented by a well known west coast face but I’ve no idea who?

Yes - certainly has and before this scam.

[TAHibby]

"Hello there this is the bank calling, for security we need you to transfer money into this account." Either an inside job or someone's been an absolute idiot, don't see how the bank is accountable

[ancient hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Accies are making the point that, although only one person had internet access to the account, 2 signatories were otherwise required on any cheque over £1,500 - therefore there was a safeguard in place for cheques but not internet transactions.

The account holder isn't the person with internet access - it's the club with the chairman being legally responsible. The bank will have had contact details of the company chairman, secretary and treasurer, together with any other person authorised to operate the account - ie. the signatories. That's where they come into it.

The bank would definitely have had the means to check on the transactions with someone else, the big question is whether they were legally obliged to do so.

Hamilton only authorised one person to operate internet banking .The bank checked to see if this was the person instructing the transfers.It was.The bank also checked whether the transfers were definitely to go.They were.Sounds as if the bank person got a flea in his ear for checking.No doubt if the transactions were genuine and the bank delayed them while double checking they’d be criticised for that.It’s Hamilton’s system in default not the bank.Surely the person making the transfers because he thought that the bank account was about to be defrauded might have wondered why the same bank was querying the actions and then to transfer to umpteen different accounts,the mind boggles.

[Thecat23]

Run by a crook and gangster, while thing sounds dodgy as well.

[Peevemor]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hamilton only authorised one person to operate internet banking .The bank checked to see if this was the person instructing the transfers.It was.The bank also checked whether the transfers were definitely to go.They were.Sounds as if the bank person got a flea in his ear for checking.No doubt if the transactions were genuine and the bank delayed them while double checking they’d be criticised for that.It’s Hamilton’s system in default not the bank.Surely the person making the transfers because he thought that the bank account was about to be defrauded might have wondered why the same bank was querying the actions and then to transfer to umpteen different accounts,the mind boggles.

[ancient hibee]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Mind you my mind boggles frequently nowadays

[Eyrie]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hamilton only authorised one person to operate internet banking .The bank checked to see if this was the person instructing the transfers.It was.The bank also checked whether the transfers were definitely to go.They were.Sounds as if the bank person got a flea in his ear for checking.No doubt if the transactions were genuine and the bank delayed them while double checking they’d be criticised for that.It’s Hamilton’s system in default not the bank.Surely the person making the transfers because he thought that the bank account was about to be defrauded might have wondered why the same bank was querying the actions and then to transfer to umpteen different accounts,the mind boggles.

Definite failing by Hamilton.

That said, I know of a case where two authorisations were required for internet banking and the two staff concerned just exchanged passwords to make life easier for themselves. No money was lost but it was not well received when the boss found out.

[--------]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Hamilton only authorised one person to operate internet banking .The bank checked to see if this was the person instructing the transfers.It was.The bank also checked whether the transfers were definitely to go.They were.Sounds as if the bank person got a flea in his ear for checking.No doubt if the transactions were genuine and the bank delayed them while double checking they’d be criticised for that.It’s Hamilton’s system in default not the bank.Surely the person making the transfers because he thought that the bank account was about to be defrauded might have wondered why the same bank was querying the actions and then to transfer to umpteen different accounts,the mind boggles.

Apparently Accies entrusted their Internet banking to the only person in Scotland who would see nothing wrong in giving their account details to a philanthropic Nigerian general just to help him out.

Never mind whether the bank should have contacted someone else at the club to check - why on earth didn't the silly man who did the internet banking check with his chairman or other board members before he did anything so drastic?

I mean. It's over a million pounds.

Banks make it very clear that they will only contact customers in certain very clearly defined ways. Every now and again you get an email from Lloyds or Barclays or someone else telling you there's a serious problem with your account and would you send them your details. If you have no account with whoever it is, you bin the email. If it's from your own bank you immediately telephone their hotline (the one they gave you when you started online banking way back - not the one on the dodgy email you're phoning about) and check with them. THEN you bin the email. It's called phishing? Or attempted fraud?

FIFTEEN different accounts? That didn't seem suspicious?

PS: This may be totally unfair, but is claiming to be terminally stupid now considered to be a valid defence against charges of serious fraud?

[Velma Dinkley]

I once spoke to a guy who responded to an advert in his local newspaper in Preston, Lancashire. The seller asked him to transfer cash to a Nigerian bank account. I asked him why that hadn't raised an alarm bell when the seller was supposed to live in Preston. He said it was because he was buying an African grey parrot from him.

I can only assume Hamilton hired this chap to manage their finances.