hibs.net Messageboard

 

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 54 of 54
  1. #31
    @hibs.net private member Peevemor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Saint-Malo, Brittany
    Age
    51
    Posts
    17,347
    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.


  2. Log in to remove the advert

  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozyhibby View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Canít believe Iím saying this but this does not sound like it is in any way RBSís fault.
    It sounds like Hamilton put a complete idiot in charge of their finances.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Something 🐟y here 😙

  4. #33
    @hibs.net private member Peevemor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Saint-Malo, Brittany
    Age
    51
    Posts
    17,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    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?

  5. #34
    @hibs.net private member CapitalGreen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Billy Whizz View Post
    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.

  6. #35
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by Peevemor View Post
    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!

  7. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Peevemor View Post
    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.

  8. #37
    @hibs.net private member Ozyhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    13,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Peevemor View Post
    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

  9. #38
    @hibs.net private member Peevemor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Saint-Malo, Brittany
    Age
    51
    Posts
    17,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by Arch Stanton View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozyhibby View Post
    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.

  10. #39
    @hibs.net private member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    157
    Quote Originally Posted by Peevemor View Post
    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.

  11. #40
    @hibs.net private member Ozyhibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Posts
    13,715
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    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.
    Iím 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

  12. #41
    @hibs.net private member Peevemor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Saint-Malo, Brittany
    Age
    51
    Posts
    17,347
    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ozyhibby View Post
    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.

  13. #42
    Coaching Staff jgl07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Merchiston
    Posts
    6,735
    Quote Originally Posted by The Modfather View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Donít 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'.

  14. #43
    First Team Regular Renfrew_Hibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Renfrew, Renfrewshire
    Posts
    579
    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?

  15. #44
    @hibs.net private member IWasThere2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bolton
    Age
    50
    Posts
    34,224
    Quote Originally Posted by Renfrew_Hibby View Post
    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

  16. #45
    @hibs.net private member CropleyWasGod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    21,462
    Quote Originally Posted by Renfrew_Hibby View Post
    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.

  17. #46
    @hibs.net private member IWasThere2016's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Bolton
    Age
    50
    Posts
    34,224
    Quote Originally Posted by calumhibee1 View Post
    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. Wouldnít 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 Iíve no idea who?
    Yes - certainly has and before this scam.

  18. #47
    First Team Breakthrough TAHibby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Edinburgh
    Age
    24
    Posts
    473
    "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

  19. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Peevemor View Post
    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 theyíd be criticised for that.Itís Hamiltonís 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.

  20. #49
    @hibs.net private member Thecat23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Age
    40
    Posts
    19,074
    Run by a crook and gangster, while thing sounds dodgy as well.

  21. #50
    @hibs.net private member Peevemor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Saint-Malo, Brittany
    Age
    51
    Posts
    17,347
    Quote Originally Posted by ancient hibee View Post
    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 theyíd be criticised for that.Itís Hamiltonís 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.

  22. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Peevemor View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
    Mind you my mind boggles frequently nowadays

  23. #52
    Solipsist Eyrie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    PDSBRE
    Posts
    6,678
    Quote Originally Posted by ancient hibee View Post
    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 theyíd be criticised for that.Itís Hamiltonís 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.
    Mature, sensible signature required for responsible position. Good prospects for the right candidate. Apply within.

  24. #53
    @hibs.net private member --------'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    25,324
    Gamer IDs

    Gamertag: Eh? PSN ID: No comprendo, senor. Wii Code: What's a Wii?
    Quote Originally Posted by ancient hibee View Post
    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?
    Last edited by --------; 08-02-2018 at 09:49 AM.

  25. #54
    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.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
hibs.net ©2012 All Rights Reserved