Can't you see from your account history where the money was sent to from your account?
Yes, its an obscure Gmail a/c, which MB have tracked to a 'trader' who ever he/she is, who used the money deposited by 'thief; in good faith. I have a conatct for the FSA to see where I stand legally, and if its worth persuing! Will update early next week, but at least my MB a/c has now been unlocked, but I will NOT be keeping any money in there, and will be changing password weekly , oh what fun!!!
Originally Posted by etherz
Bummer, I thought because they called them a merchant:
It was a company, say a gambling merchant, and they would have to provide ID etc...
We tried to investigate them but they were sent to a merchant and spent there so they cannot be refunded
Maybe they could ID the hacker from the IP address they used, some hackers are stupid and dont cover their tracks, I remember when my card details were stolen (a mystery, they had my CVV and everything, but I still had the physical card) They used my card to buy dominoes pizza, donate to cancer research, and buy car insurance (obviously trackable!).
I dont think moneybookers offer any kind of IP security tools, but I know on betfair, you can restrict connections to a certain IP address or range of addresses, so no-one other than you (or if you have dynamic IP anyone on your ISP) can login with your details, unless they tunnel through your computer...
Did you ever hold over £1000 in your moneybookers account? I remember when I went over a couple of months ago I had to sign an agreement that my money was not covered under the FSA or something along those line (will try and dig it out)
Edit: Heres the email I got:
We would like to inform you that you have received a payment or made an upload of *** GBP to your Moneybookers account. Since your balance would exceed GBP 1,000 by crediting this amount, this payment is currently scheduled. Before it can be processed you must accept an electronic acknowledgement that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) does not apply to regulated UK e-money issuers. This is a requirement by the Financial Services Authority, and in no way affects the security of your e-money.
You will be prompted to accept this waiver the next time you login to your Moneybookers account. Here you will also find further details of what it means to you.
That sounds the most likely scenario to me. As I said in an earlier post, despite all the publicity for hacking, phishing etc, the majority of these frauds are inside jobs. The mainstream banks are all signed up to the Banking Code of Practice, under which they will recompense customers in this sort of situation unless it is clearly the customer's fault. The main reason for this is that they are petrified that any external investigation will show up shortcomings in their own internal systems and they'd rather take it on the chin than suffer the adverse publicity. Prosecuting bank frauds has always been a nightmare for this reason. Unfortunately it does not seem that Moneybookers adopt this practice. The Financial Ombudsman may be able to intervene in your particular case but it may also be worthwhile to complain to the FSA. Whilst I don't think there is any absolute legal requirement to compensate customers in this sort of situation, FSA authorised firms do have to be "fit and proper". It does not strike me that defaulting to a stance where they effectively blame the customer is a "fit and proper" way for a financial institution to conduct its business. As ever, it is worth giving Moneybookers as much grief as possible. An Ombudsman case would be a real pain in the arse from their perspective (I know, I've been on the receiving end of a few) and they may cough up to avoid the hassle.
Originally Posted by munk
Now excuse me while I rush off and change my Moneybookers password.
Oh, and don't forget you could report it to the Police as well. It is a theft after all.
What was this about if you don't mind me asking, perfectly fine if you don't want to say just curious now!?
Originally Posted by chriso
I am quite tempted actually - in light of this thread - to email Moneybookers to tell them I've reduced my balance significantly because I don't have enough faith in their security systems to keep my money safe.
Use of Captchas/'Turing' number
This system is known to be extremely easy to circumnavigate by dedicated criminal networks who can afford to employ software engineers to create character recognition software.
Lack of Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) cover
I would like to know whether Moneybookers is covered by the compensation scheme at all (I could probably find this out I suppose by looking through the help). If there's an upper limit on money covered (£1k was mentioned above?) then I definitely won't be keeping more than that much in here.
Lack of network address based security limits
As mentioned above it would be a good idea to have some kind of security system in place which allows an MB user to specify which IP addresses they want to allow any money transaction to be authorized from.
What else could be addressed?
I work for Government agency so my dealings have been with the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman ("PHSO"), rather than the Financial Services Ombudsman. We are, amongst other things, in the business of shutting down dodgy businesses. Our targets rarely have strong grounds for challenging our findings so they often choose to attack the process instead. The PHSO looks into unfair or improper actions by Government Departments and their agencies. They take their job very seriously and examine the way in which our investigation was conducted with a fine tooth-comb. Although I cannot ever remember losing an Ombudsman case they take a lot of time and resource to deal with. I don't know exactly how the Financial Services Ombudsman goes about things but I imagine there are similarities.
Originally Posted by munk
When you first come to hold >£1k in your Moneybookers account, you see a screen containing the following text (well, this is just the part I have to hand... it's a much larger piece of text) and you have to tick a box to agree to it:
Originally Posted by munk
"Issuing e-money is a 'regulated activity' under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Moneybookers Ltd. is regulated by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) of the United Kingdom. The entire balance of your Moneybookers account is protected by regulation in regard to capital, liquidity and float management requirements. We are required to keep the funds received in exchange for e-money in pre-defined low-risk assets and to hold at any time sufficiently liquid assets to be able to redeem all e-money issued. We are legally obliged to make our customers aware that (1) the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) does not apply to funds stored on your Moneybookers account; (2) if Moneybookers Ltd. becomes insolvent the funds stored on your Moneybookers account may become valueless and unusable; and (3) consequently, if Moneybookers Ltd. becomes insolvent you may lose the funds stored in your account.
By checking this box you acknowledge the above written warning. If you do not acknowledge this warning you may continue to use Moneybookers but we cannot allow your account balance to exceed GBP 1000 or the equivalent in your account currency."
In their standard terms, they have "9.4. Customer acknowledges that the Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) does not apply to funds stored on his/her Moneybookers account and that there is no other voluntary or compulsory scheme in which Moneybookers is a member that compensates holders of e-money issued by Moneybookers in case the Company becomes unable to satisfy claims against it in relation to e-money."
I know some people think once you tick the box then you're not covered at all, some think you're covered but not on the surplus above £1k, some think you were never covered!
I just try not to keep a lot in there to be honest and treat it like a bookie, wouldn't want £5k just sitting there for weeks for example.
Certainly I find it poor that there's no complaints procedure on their site, you have to ask them about it as far as I can tell but the mere mention of going to the Ombudsman might stir them into action because their reply is quite simply not good enough for a customer.
Looks to me like it isn't covered by the FSCS at all but they have either been required, or advised, that they should make sure that clients are in no doubt about this if the balance reaches a certain threshold.
Interesting (and somewhat worrying) that they apparently take no steps to ring-fence client funds from their own, which is usually de rigueur for most intermediaries and professional firms handling 3rd party funds.
Yes thanks a million for that musicbox that's very helpful and insightful indeed, just goes to show you how important it is to read the small print sometimes - unfortunately for most it will be too late by the time they get to reading the t&c to see where they stand.
I like the idea of treating money in a Moneybookers account just like a bookmaker. It's something to date I'd not really done and must admit my balance there to date has generally been quite large, say as much as 50% of my total float. I will certainly not be keeping anywhere near that amount in Moneybookers from now on and will look to cap it at around 10% - a figure I generally use for bookies as an amount that I could afford to lose (although obviously wouldn't be happy about losing it!).
It does mean a little extra 'paperwork', but from now on I will keep the majority of my float in my bank account and if I need to make a payment via Moneybookers I'll just use the visa debit option at Moneybookers if I don't have enough to cover it in Moneybookers.
Thanks again, very useful information indeed.
PS - chriso sorry for got your great posts, very interesting info re the work you do! And yes I'm surprised they're not legally required to ring fence client's funds so they're safe in the event that they go into administration.
On the subject of FOS (ombudsman), I was watching Working Lunch a day or two ago and they said that their workload has gone up considerably during the recession and that people should still put in their complaints but to be aware that it may take longer than usual to process. HOWEVER having said that I don't know that the FOS is the place to go for the OP here... as mentioned above the police would be worth talking to at least.
Tags for this Thread