Sorry to be negative but this did not answer the question of how to prevent wire fraud. The reporter is simply touting his anointed ability to get people relief because he has a public platform. Thousands of others are without recourse because our legislatures are in the banks' pockets.
The bank should be using transaction alert technology to trigger additional confirmation on suspicious transactions so that the bank requires additional info on why the transaction is being made, to whom, and for what purpose, especially for large transactions, repeated transactions, and if the nature of the transaction is out of character for the accountholder. I think it's better to be inconvenienced a little and it be more difficult to move money than to risk such losses.
To be honest the bank was kinda right for not returning her money at first... because she made the transaction... because how will the bank really know if she's not doing the fraud herself? Once she went on the news and talked about it then that's when the bank made the decision to give her the money... because now they have a reason to believe her...
These news stories make it sound as though $$$ was taken out of the accounts before the owners were contacted but that is obviously not the case. Treat us like we are four and provide the complete sequence of events so we can understand, without guessing, what really happened .
Not reimbursing your customer who compromised their own account is not a "loophole". Never give you password to anybody period.
This is why I don't pick up phone calls from someone I don't know.
Sorry to be negative but this did not answer the question of how to prevent wire fraud. The reporter is simply touting his anointed ability to get people relief because he has a public platform. Thousands of others are without recourse because our legislatures are in the banks' pockets.
They got into your neighborhood but you handed them the key to your house
Yep, how is the bank to know for sure that she didn't orchestrate the fraud herself and is actually one of the crooks herself.
The bank should be using transaction alert technology to trigger additional confirmation on suspicious transactions so that the bank requires additional info on why the transaction is being made, to whom, and for what purpose, especially for large transactions, repeated transactions, and if the nature of the transaction is out of character for the accountholder. I think it's better to be inconvenienced a little and it be more difficult to move money than to risk such losses.
I don't see how this was the banks fault she gave fraudsters access to her money.
"New fangled payment apps." Okay grandpa, put down the typewriter! 😅
How bout cancel chase account.
To be honest the bank was kinda right for not returning her money at first... because she made the transaction... because how will the bank really know if she's not doing the fraud herself? Once she went on the news and talked about it then that's when the bank made the decision to give her the money... because now they have a reason to believe her...
Lazy bank boys in fancy clothes will never call you about fraud! What do you think the bank does? 😂
now days to be safe you need too visit your bank when sending money from your accounts
These news stories make it sound as though $$$ was taken out of the accounts before the owners were contacted but that is obviously not the case. Treat us like we are four and provide the complete sequence of events so we can understand, without guessing, what really happened .
Scammers steal money then send into bank but should the bank inform FBI ......weird