2. 职称英语
  3. The Telephone Fraudsters (行骗者) That Just Keep on Taking[A]More vi

The Telephone Fraudsters (行骗者) That Just Keep on Taking[A]More vi

游客2023-08-21  21
问题               The Telephone Fraudsters (行骗者) That Just Keep on Taking
[A]More victims of telephone fraudsters, who persuade the careless to hand over their life savings, have come forward—one woman lost more than ￡100,000. It has also emerged that, in some rare cases, the banks have been refunding the money.
[B]Last month Guardian Money highlighted how thousands of mostly older people had fallen victim to the so-called " courier fraud" (快递诈骗), which starts with a phone call out of blue. Callers pretend to be phoning from the bank investigating a fraud—in some cases they say they are police officers—and have been successful in conning (诈骗) people out of big sums.
[C]It works because potential victims are invited to call the bank back using the phone number on the back of their debit card. Having dialed that number, they naturally assume they are speaking to genuine bank staff and hand over the crucial personal details. But the conmen have simply kept the phone line open and wait for the bank call.
[D]The two victims we featured in June had lost ￡23,000 and ￡7,000. Their banks, Barclays and NatWest, refused to help on the basis that they had personally asked to withdraw their money, and the banks had simply complied.
[E]Guardian Money has since been contacted by another victim who lost ￡68,000, but in this case has been refunded by Barclays. She was called by someone claiming to be from Tesco Finance, saying that he had a reason to believe her Tesco credit card had been fraudulently used online, and that her bank account could also have been compromised. As this had happened to her husband about two years earlier, she took it more seriously than she might have. She was invited to call the number on the back of her Santander bank card and got straight through to what she thought was its fraud department. "I did not give any bank account details and he was extremely convincing, having answers for all my questions about security. I then transferred my life savings of ￡68,000 into what I thought were two ’ Santander secure’ accounts. I later discovered these were two Barclays accounts at a branch in east London. " It was only when it emerged that Tesco had not called that she realized what had happened. But the genuine Santander fraud department made it clear that it was not responsible as she had made the transfer. "I was devastated (极为震惊的) and in shock: like many other victims, this money was all I had saved, including my pension lump sum. They took not just the money but my future hopes, dreams and the safety net for a time when I would possibly need extra funds. " Three days later she was told the Barclays accounts were closed and all the money gone.
[F]The case was referred to the Metropolitan Police serious fraud department and she contacted the Financial Ombudsman Service for a judgment on the bank’s decision. Six months later it notified her that Barclays would repay the ￡68,000 in a "full and final settlement of my complaint against them as a gesture of goodwill". She adds: "I was delighted. I have been extremely fortunate, but most do not get the same result. You cannot believe what an impact this can have. I felt incredibly stupid and lost all confidence. I stopped going out at one point. "
[G]Barclays says the money was refunded because the account to which it was moved had already been flagged up as suspicious. It explains: "Where we are alerted to suspicious activity, or it is picked up by our transaction profiling, we will investigate and if we are satisfied that the accounts are being used to launder the proceeds of crime we act as quickly as possible to close the accounts. Customers who transferred funds into the account after a fraud has been detected would receive a refund. "
[H]Last week, Warwickshire police warned about cold calls from people purporting to be a bank official or police officer after an 89-year-old from Atherstone lost more than ￡100,000.
[I]When Guardian Money ran its June story, one reader said the same thing had happened to his wife, and that she had been refunded by HSBC. He said he cited the case of Barclays Bank plc v Quincecare Ltd. , 1992, and quoted this from the judgment: " Given that the bank owes a legal duty to exercise reasonable care in and about executing a customer’s order to transfer money... If the bank executes the order knowing it to be dishonestly given, shutting its eyes to the obvious fact of the dishonesty, or acting recklessly in failing to make such inquiries as an honest and reasonable man would make, no problem arises: the bank will plainly be liable. " HSBC, without admitting liability, had replaced the ￡5,000 in his wife’s account within a few days, he wrote. Money asked barrister Richard Colbey, of Lamb Chambers, to see whether this argument could work for other fraud victims, and he said not. " The citation he gives is one of the often used and obvious law, but does not help with your cases where the bank has not closed its eyes to something obviously wrong. "
[J]Since this scam (骗局) came to light, telecoms providers have come under pressure to quickly terminate calls when the recipient puts down the phone. Currently, if you phone some two-thirds of BT numbers you can remain on the line for several minutes, even if the person taking the call has put down the handset.
[K]This allows the scam to succeed. The victim hears a fake dialing tone, and calls what they think is their bank. Ofcom says it has been working with the industry to tackle the problem. The telecoms regulator says TalkTalk reduced the disconnect time to two seconds on its network in September 2013. Sky did the same in June this year. BT has so far reduced the time to a maximum of 10 seconds for around 6 million customers on its network representing a third of BT’s local exchanges.
[L]Ofcom expects the remaining exchanges, which are more complicated to change, to take up two years to upgrade. Virgin Media hopes to cut the time to two seconds for 50% of customers by the end of September. The other half could take a year or more.
[M]A spokesperson says, " Ofcom remains committed to working closely with the police, and landline and mobile providers, to ensure that necessary changes to telephone networks and systems are made as quickly as possible. We have been absolutely clear in our dealings with providers that they have a very important role in protecting their customers from fraudulent activity and that this work must be prioritized (给予......优先权). "
[N]Don’t fall for what looks like a growing scam—a call from someone pretending to be from BT asking you why your latest bill hasn’t been paid.
[O]A Guardian reader contacted us after she was phoned at home on 3 July. Coincidentally, she had paid her BT bill by cheque just 10 days or so before, so it all "sounded extremely plausible". The caller asked for her date of birth " for security purposes". " I reminded him that he had phoned me, but he insisted he still needed it. He encouraged me to pay the bill there and then by credit card. He asked how much the cheque had been for. I told him, but then it struck me that he had not given me any information that confirmed that he was from BT. I said I was going to phone back. " She called BT to confirm that her account was clear, and at that point realized the scammer had been trying to con her card details out of her—including the three-digit number on the back—and her postcode. Our reader didn’t fall for it. No one should ever hand over personal information to anyone over the phone—whoever they say they are. [br] The reason why Barclays and NatWest refused to refund was that they were not responsible as the two victims withdrew their money voluntarily.
选项
答案 D
解析 [D]段提到，巴克莱银行和国民西敏寺银行拒绝帮助两名受害者是因为受害者是亲自要求取钱的，而银行只是照做。由此可知，两家银行认为自己没有责任，原因是受害人亲自要求取钱，所以不必赔钱。题干中的refused to refund对应原文中的refused to help；voluntarily对应原文中的personally，故答案为[D]。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/2944811.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)