PDA

View Full Version : Hamilton Accies scam



Billy Whizz
06-02-2018, 01:33 PM
It’s more than I originally thought! Almost a million taken out of their bank

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1407691-hamilton-accies-sue-rbs-after-1m-scam/

SouthMoroccoStu
06-02-2018, 01:36 PM
Weren't hearts hit by this too?

Sadly for not as much

Billy Whizz
06-02-2018, 01:37 PM
Weren't hearts hit by this too?

Sadly for not as much

They were, and someone has been charged
Don’t know if it’s the same type of scam though?

The Modfather
06-02-2018, 01:45 PM
They were, and someone has been charged
Don’t know if it’s the same type of scam though?

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

greenginger
06-02-2018, 01:48 PM
Weren't hearts hit by this too?

Sadly for not as much

Would'nt matter, the anonymous donor would pony-up.

hibee
06-02-2018, 02:23 PM
The bank contacted the club twice to question the payments but were told to go ahead but somehow he’s trying to say it’s still the banks fault, not sure they’ll win that one!

hhibs
06-02-2018, 03:07 PM
I could be wrong,often are ,but have there not been many rumours ,over many years, that Hamilton Accies are,shall we say, Fiscally "unusual"

calumhibee1
06-02-2018, 03:17 PM
I could be wrong,often are ,but have there not been many rumours ,over many years, that Hamilton Accies are,shall we say, Fiscally "unusual"

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?

HIBEES 4 LIFE
06-02-2018, 03:26 PM
The bank contacted the club twice to question the payments but were told to go ahead but somehow he’s trying to say it’s still the banks fault, not sure they’ll win that one!

Correct, the payments were authorised by a accountable member of staff from the club. Who would have had to pass security. Feel sorry for them but this is a last ditch attempt to save their club. If it was the banks fault then they would want the £800k back. They'll not be winning this battle

snedzuk
06-02-2018, 03:52 PM
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?

Joe 'bananas' hamilton

hibsbollah
06-02-2018, 04:06 PM
Derek Ferguson was very involved behind the scenes at Hamilton apparently.

Tornadoes70
06-02-2018, 04:14 PM
Don’t think anyone has been charged for the Malary Martin scam though 😀

Heard Costa Coffee on George Street have profiteered through the Malaury Martin scam too. He's been seen there sitting with associates drinking expensive lattes on most match-days. Spent a fortune there allegedly.

mon the cabbage!!!

Is It On....
06-02-2018, 05:29 PM
It’s more than I originally thought! Almost a million taken out of their bank

https://stv.tv/news/west-central/1407691-hamilton-accies-sue-rbs-after-1m-scam/

My grandfather used to say "a fool and their money are easily parted". Sadly for Accies, that has never looked so true.

CropleyWasGod
06-02-2018, 05:32 PM
Joe 'bananas' hamilton

Hanlon?

He's long deid.

Arch Stanton
06-02-2018, 05:35 PM
The bank contacted the club twice to question the payments but were told to go ahead but somehow he’s trying to say it’s still the banks fault, not sure they’ll win that one!

:agree: Beggars belief actually. Someone purporting to be the bank told him to make the transfers and then when the bank phones to check the transactions it doesn't twig. It's crap when it happens to old people and it's a shame for the guy, but really!

Clerie Green
06-02-2018, 05:36 PM
Did they make a million by selling grass ?
:wink::thumbsup::agree:

Thecat23
06-02-2018, 05:37 PM
Weren't hearts hit by this too?

Sadly for not as much

Knowing Hearts it was prob them who stole Hamilton’s cash to fund Naismiths transfer!! 😁

HoboHarry
06-02-2018, 05:57 PM
One of those times I'm glad we have Rod in charge of our money, he wouldn't have allowed that to happen to us. Rod would probably would have gotten 1 million out of them first..... :greengrin

jax67
06-02-2018, 06:02 PM
Knowing Hearts it was prob them who stole Hamilton’s cash to fund Naismiths transfer!! 😁

“Watson!! The game is afoot”.👏😝

NAE NOOKIE
06-02-2018, 06:18 PM
I'm amazed Hamilton had a million quid to nick in the first place.

I cant believe one employee had the power to transfer such a huge sum of money without a number of checks and balances being in place at the club to stop it happening. I cant help thinking a judge will be of the same opinion.

They are right that banks have a duty of care to help prevent fraud ... but as far as I'm aware there has yet to be invented an anti malware or anti virus programme that protects a business against gullibility or outright stupidity.

CapitalGreen
06-02-2018, 06:32 PM
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?

Barry Hughes

macca70
06-02-2018, 06:37 PM
Banks take enough abuse, I think it’s time that individuals and businesses consider their own responsibility for being financially prudent.

RBS checked twice that the transaction was genuine and confirmed that it was to proceed.

Who from Hamilton is transferring the clubs whole life savings without more stringent checks by the club?! Mental!!

delbert
06-02-2018, 07:33 PM
Banks take enough abuse, I think it’s time that individuals and businesses consider their own responsibility for being financially prudent.

RBS checked twice that the transaction was genuine and confirmed that it was to proceed.

Who from Hamilton is transferring the clubs whole life savings without more stringent checks by the club?! Mental!!

This 100%, the bank warned Hamilton twice, and twice were told all was ok. Someone at Hamilton has to man up and admit they fell for a scam despite being warned on two separate occasions, they are a business and the bank can’t hold their hand every minute of the day. An employee fell for a scam, it’s their fault, and I think they will be laughed out of court! Basically the whole item was simply confirming that they behaved like mugs and now want someone to bail them out, not often I would say this, but I think the bank are entirely justified in saying GTF !!

Onion
06-02-2018, 07:50 PM
SPFL will dock them points for financial mismanagement :wink:

greenlex
06-02-2018, 09:44 PM
This 100%, the bank warned Hamilton twice, and twice were told all was ok. Someone at Hamilton has to man up and admit they fell for a scam despite being warned on two separate occasions, they are a business and the bank can’t hold their hand every minute of the day. An employee fell for a scam, it’s their fault, and I think they will be laughed out of court! Basically the whole item was simply confirming that they behaved like mugs and now want someone to bail them out, not often I would say this, but I think the bank are entirely justified in saying GTF !!

The bank should have queried it a bit further IMO. They queried it with the same person. I think they should have been asking the question of someone else at the club after the second time. The amounts were unusual activity. What if the person saying it was ok was embezzling the funds? It might be bank protocol but it needs tightened up too. Hamilton however don’t have a leg to stand on

greenlex
06-02-2018, 09:49 PM
Banks take enough abuse, I think it’s time that individuals and businesses consider their own responsibility for being financially prudent.

RBS checked twice that the transaction was genuine and confirmed that it was to proceed.

Who from Hamilton is transferring the clubs whole life savings without more stringent checks by the club?! Mental!!
There were 10 unusual transactions of equal big amounts in a 24hr period. Alarm bells should have been sounded at the bank even after being told twice everything was ok. The clubs funds were withdrawn in that time. I have some sympathy. Hamilton’s fault 100% but the bank needs to tighten up too.

Billy Whizz
06-02-2018, 10:01 PM
Barry Hughes

Is he not Stokes agent as well?

Rocky
06-02-2018, 10:21 PM
There were 10 unusual transactions of equal big amounts in a 24hr period. Alarm bells should have been sounded at the bank even after being told twice everything was ok. The clubs funds were withdrawn in that time. I have some sympathy. Hamilton’s fault 100% but the bank needs to tighten up too.

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.

ian cruise
06-02-2018, 10:40 PM
There were 10 unusual transactions of equal big amounts in a 24hr period. Alarm bells should have been sounded at the bank even after being told twice everything was ok. The clubs funds were withdrawn in that time. I have some sympathy. Hamilton’s fault 100% but the bank needs to tighten up too.

Hamilton did get some cash back due to frozen transactions which makes it sound like the bank did start to stop the transactions even after they'd been told it was OK.

Whole thing sounds as dodgy as can be, I can't believe it's one guy who got taken in by fraudsters.

Ozyhibby
07-02-2018, 08:40 AM
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

Peevemor
07-02-2018, 09:23 AM
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
07-02-2018, 09:43 AM
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
07-02-2018, 09:52 AM
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
07-02-2018, 10:14 AM
Is he not Stokes agent as well?

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

Rocky
07-02-2018, 10:24 AM
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
07-02-2018, 10:24 AM
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
07-02-2018, 10:26 AM
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
07-02-2018, 10:29 AM
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!


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.


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
07-02-2018, 10:36 AM
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
07-02-2018, 10:44 AM
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
07-02-2018, 10:50 AM
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

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
07-02-2018, 11:51 AM
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
07-02-2018, 11:57 AM
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
07-02-2018, 12:11 PM
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 :cb

CropleyWasGod
07-02-2018, 12:12 PM
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
07-02-2018, 12:13 PM
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
07-02-2018, 12:14 PM
"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
07-02-2018, 03:00 PM
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
07-02-2018, 03:03 PM
Run by a crook and gangster, while thing sounds dodgy as well.

Peevemor
07-02-2018, 03:04 PM
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.

:agree:

ancient hibee
07-02-2018, 03:06 PM
:agree:
Mind you my mind boggles frequently nowadays:greengrin

Eyrie
07-02-2018, 09:05 PM
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.

--------
08-02-2018, 10:20 AM
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? :confused:

Velma Dinkley
08-02-2018, 10:47 AM
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.