scooter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 403
Likes: 379
|
Post by scooter on Jan 7, 2020 16:42:47 GMT
Hi, I have read some old threads on here where it is noted that the P2P platform as the arranger of the loan are unable to claim on behalf of lenders and can only claim for their own direct losses. I wondered if anything had changed in this regard?
Are there any Platform representatives who can comment on this to give an up to date view?
I have a loan in mind that I was going to ask the platform in question (one without a representative and a poor reputation for detailed responses, if any, on duff loans) to admit was obtained fraudulently (at least not for the requested purpose as he left the country immediately and put the business in voluntary liquidation never making a single payment) and to take it up with Action Fraud, but I have very little legal knowledge.
Obviously the full amount of the loan would get more attention than my piddly amount.
|
|
|
|
Post by notascooby on Jan 8, 2020 21:18:46 GMT
I am not trying to dissuade you, but having to some knowledge of Action Fraud, I wonder what you're are trying to achieve. AF is a clearing house for reports of fraud. Especially frauds which do not seem to have a "home".
It arose because the way police previously recorded such crimes often had the victims address as the location. As a result there was a discontinuity when more than one victim was involved. Duplication of work and often attempts by forces to manage resources and criminal stats by artificially moving the venue into another force area.
AF would almost certainly record your allegation and no admission by the platform is needed. Indeed, you don't even need to you consult them. A crime number will be issued and a decision made as to which force area is the relevant one. Often it is the address of the company involved.
There is a chance that this may be written up as a civil dispute and no further action taken. Unless you can demonstrate dishonesty that will be the end of the matter. Investigators are overworked beyond belief and your allegation needs to make the first cut.
If you are hoping to be persuade an officer to make a further investigation then I might be suggest evidence of repeated behaviour, or information that the funds went outside the company for a different purpose they were intended.
Frauds can be time consuming to prosecute. Before Action Fraud was founded some forces simply refused to accept allegations on the basis that the finincial institutions had all the evidence and technology.
I hope this helps.
|
|
scooter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 403
Likes: 379
|
Post by scooter on Jan 8, 2020 22:49:56 GMT
I am not trying to dissuade you, but having to some knowledge of Action Fraud, I wonder what you're are trying to achieve. AF is a clearing house for reports of fraud. Especially frauds which do not seem to have a "home". It arose because the way police previously recorded such crimes often had the victims address as the location. As a result there was a discontinuity when more than one victim was involved. Duplication of work and often attempts by forces to manage resources and criminal stats by artificially moving the venue into another force area. AF would almost certainly record your allegation and no admission by the platform is needed. Indeed, you don't even need to you consult them. A crime number will be issued and a decision made as to which force area is the relevant one. Often it is the address of the company involved. There is a chance that this may be written up as a civil dispute and no further action taken. Unless you can demonstrate dishonesty that will be the end of the matter. Investigators are overworked beyond belief and your allegation needs to make the first cut. If you are hoping to be persuade an officer to make a further investigation then I might be suggest evidence of repeated behaviour, or information that the funds went outside the company for a different purpose they were intended. Frauds can be time consuming to prosecute. Before Action Fraud was founded some forces simply refused to accept allegations on the basis that the finincial institutions had all the evidence and technology. I hope this helps. Hi thanks for the info. I was going to ask FC whether they had reported this as a crime. Borrower needed money because he was so busy as a builder he needed to hire more staff etc and as soon as he got the money he put the business in VL and scarpered to Italy in less than a month. They think they know where he is but have not been able to serve him a couple of years on. FC say no evidence of a fraud. I see no evidence of it not being a fraud and I got to wondering why they wouldn't want the help of the police one way or another. It's not that I have a large investment, it is that the more this goes unpunished the more I think about doing it myself 😂 Anyway I looked into it and as I mentioned it seems that certainly 4/5 years ago even one of the platforms was trying to get investors to report frauds to AF as they could not act on investors behalf as it is not their loss. I wanted to know the current position because if I am going to continue investing I can stand the stress of loosing money to those who try really hard to make a business work, but not being shafted by a crook. I looked on AFs website earlier and they don't even mention p2p via a platform. I tried online chat _ she had no clue what I was talking about. I rang them, they didn't answer the phone. I emailed them.... I will post the response if I get one. Thanks again
|
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Jan 9, 2020 6:21:24 GMT
At The Money Platform we have certain fully automated controls in place that make impersonation fraud ("third party fraud") impossible to succeed. Therefore we have no requirement to use services such as Action Fraud or CIFAS. Intent fraud ("first party fraud") is a different matter, but you wouldn't typically report these externally except for SCOR reporting to the credit agencies..
However, at RateSetter (I was there 2013-2016) we did unfortunately suffer like all normal unsecured lenders from impersonation fraud. Usually, depending on circumstances, we did report these to Action Fraud. Although the numbers were very small, RateSetter was very good at stopping fraudsters successfully getting loans.
I can't comment on the question if this was allowed, as technically we were not the "owners" of the loan. But this technicality was never questioned by CIFAS or Action Fraud who happily processed our data.
That said, Action Fraud is known in the industry as "No Action Fraud", or "Inaction Fraud". They rarely seem to do anything. In my entire 25 year risk career, I've only ever had one case where something happened and an individual was found and prosecuted. And actually this was a simple and personally tragic case, that I'd rather they hadn't pursued (but that's another story).
TTFN,
Kevin.
|
|
|
|
Post by WestonKevTMP on Jan 9, 2020 6:30:51 GMT
There is a chance that this may be written up as a civil dispute and no further action taken. Unless you can demonstrate dishonesty that will be the end of the matter. Investigators are overworked beyond belief and your allegation needs to make the first cut. If you are hoping to be persuade an officer to make a further investigation then I might be suggest evidence of repeated behaviour, or information that the funds went outside the company for a different purpose they were intended. Hi thanks for the info. I was going to ask FC whether they had reported this as a crime. Borrower needed money because he was so busy as a builder he needed to hire more staff etc and as soon as he got the money he put the business in VL and scarpered to Italy in less than a month. They think they know where he is but have not been able to serve him a couple of years on. FC say no evidence of a fraud. I see no evidence of it not being a fraud and I got to wondering why they wouldn't want the help of the police one way or another. It's not that I have a large investment, it is that the more this goes unpunished the more I think about doing it myself 😂 Anyway I looked into it and as I mentioned it seems that certainly 4/5 years ago even one of the platforms was trying to get investors to report frauds to AF as they could not act on investors behalf as it is not their loss. I wanted to know the current position because if I am going to continue investing I can stand the stress of loosing money to those who try really hard to make a business work, but not being shafted by a crook. I looked on AFs website earlier and they don't even mention p2p via a platform. I tried online chat _ she had no clue what I was talking about. I rang them, they didn't answer the phone. I emailed them.... I will post the response if I get one. Thanks again This issue you have is that this is First Party Fraud, where you know who has the money. But, they either told a fib on the application such as loan purpose or had a lack of intent. This is common in SME lending where there is no mark against the individual, as there is with the credit agencies for personal lending. Action Fraud are typically interested in impersonation or other criminal activity. Secondly, my understanding is that they were created in order to act as a comparison and tracking tool of multiple frauds that might occur across jurisdictions (especially required in the Internet age). They are looking for patterns or common data points such as IP addresses. And so if this is an isolated case AND was not impersonation, I very doubt Action Fraud would do anything for both reasons. I regret you'll be wasting your time. Kevin.
|
|
scooter
Member of DD Central
Posts: 403
Likes: 379
|
Post by scooter on Jan 9, 2020 9:44:18 GMT
Thanks for your thoughts. Appreciated.
As you say 1st party fraud is common and unlikely to be reported or acted on. So one fraudster gets £100k and hundreds of investors loose a small amount and no action gets taken and if the platform does nothing it is not even registered as an issue.
I know I won't get my money back via AF but I think platforms should get involved in the process (in their own best interests) and if they won't act they should be in some way liable. They always say ignorance is no defence in the law and passing a fraud on to others seems to fit.......thoughts?
Thanks again.
|
|
|
|
Post by notascooby on Jan 12, 2020 17:07:20 GMT
Scooter if you want to pm me I am happy to have an off platform discussion.
|
|
