I-Hate_boiler_rooms
Junior member
- Messages
- 30
- Likes
- 0
Spot on pboyles. The banks in most countries do have a duty of care to there clients. Appproaching the bank with as much information as possible is the best idea and then contact the local police organisation.I know of many success stories where the client of a scam has retreived there money, by going tothe bank directly.!! Goodluck
Dear All,
google for Mareva letter and read carefully. Banks have an obligation to care not only for their own customers if they get knowledge of fraud!
One sample of what was found:
http://www.mondaq.com/canada/x/13224...ctims+Of+Fraud
I urge everybody to read it. Essentially what it says is that whereas historically banks saw their duty of care was exclusively to their customers (i.e. account holders)it is now being accepted by the judiciary that banks have an equal duty of care to third parties (i.e. non-customers)that are either defrauded or potentially defrauded by a bank's customer. The first sentence of this article expresses this very well:
"Recent Canadian judicial decisions have established that a bank owes a duty of care to non-customers once it has actual knowledge of, or is willfully blind to, the use of its services for fraudulent purposes. In Ontario in particular, the possibility is still open that a bank may owe such a duty even where it does not have actual knowledge (or is not willfully blind or reckless to the existence) of a fraud".
It is indisputable that boiler rooms could not operate without bank accounts and thus it is clear that such fraud could be stopped almost overnight if banks took more care in checking out prospective new account applicants. And that is the key: If a bank fails to carry out proper checks and this failure results in non-customers being defrauded then the bank has failed in its duty of care to these non-customers and so has to accept some if not all responsibility for their losses.
I would encourage all boiler room victims to at least communicate with the boiler room's bank by writing a "Mareva Letter". The article clearly describes what the letter should contain. The paperwork from the boiler room will always do the job as it ties the boiler room to the bank by naming the collecting agent (the beneficiary) who is of course a customer of the bank (i.e. an account holder). There is no way that a bank can dodge this and once it has received such a letter it has to do something. The point to seize on is the bank's vetting procedures for new account applicants. Certainly from what I have seen the typical boiler room's collecting agent should never have passed the first hurdle given today's strict anti-money laundering regulations.
Regards and good luck
JSmile