334 replies to this topic

[lewBlew]

Why test for finger prints or DNA when there is a bank account to trace this guy? And possibly Gumtree and a phone (although less likely to be successful). This guy's details may not even be on the database. As a last resort perhaps they will look to see if there are prints but if they find them what do they prove? That someone has touched the packet of paper (box unlikely to be useful here) at some point during the handling process. That's not a crime. They will still have to make a link between this individual, the money and the OP to prosecute.

[thebullet]

But then you see, I have proof with weights of the package compared to the boxed weight of the cameras.

[mini-luke]

Just because someoe touched the box, or the paper inside doesn't mean they were responsible for scamming you - I used to work for RM so my prints could be found in thousands of packages

[Captain Mainwaring]

Why test for finger prints or DNA when there is a bank account to trace this guy? And possibly Gumtree and a phone (although less likely to be successful). This guy's details may not even be on the database. As a last resort perhaps they will look to see if there are prints but if they find them what do they prove? That someone has touched the packet of paper (box unlikely to be useful here) at some point during the handling process. That's not a crime. They will still have to make a link between this individual, the money and the OP to prosecute.

 

Unless our scammer is completely soft in the head, then I guess he would have opened a bank account using details that weren't his own.

You know the name on the account, but you don't know the name of whoever took the money out of the account.

 

You're assuming our guy doesn't have any form - i'm betting he does. If the DNA/prints happen to be on record and tie up to this herbert then it adds to the "evidence". 

Let's say they trace the guy who owns the bank account - by the same logic as you apply he could say "it's not me, I didn't do it and I won't do it again, more to the point, you can't prove bugger all" - seems to make sense to tie as much together as possible (I watch CSI every night, and that's what Bodie and Doyle do)

[thebullet]

Well as this CSI who lives next door reckons I should be telling the police to see the evidence, I'm pretty sure he wouldn't be saying it if he didn't think that they would even do anything. 

[Carlos W]

There is nothing advanced about getting fingerprints from paper, and most forces have in house labs to do this so the cost is very little!

It would be easier to open a fake bank account than fake your fingerprints!

[lewBlew]

 

Why test for finger prints or DNA when there is a bank account to trace this guy? And possibly Gumtree and a phone (although less likely to be successful). This guy's details may not even be on the database. As a last resort perhaps they will look to see if there are prints but if they find them what do they prove? That someone has touched the packet of paper (box unlikely to be useful here) at some point during the handling process. That's not a crime. They will still have to make a link between this individual, the money and the OP to prosecute.

 

Unless our scammer is completely soft in the head, then I guess he would have opened a bank account using details that weren't his own.

You know the name on the account, but you don't know the name of whoever took the money out of the account.

 

You're assuming our guy doesn't have any form - i'm betting he does. If the DNA/prints happen to be on record and tie up to this herbert then it adds to the "evidence". 

Let's say they trace the guy who owns the bank account - by the same logic as you apply he could say "it's not me, I didn't do it and I won't do it again, more to the point, you can't prove bugger all" - seems to make sense to tie as much together as possible (I watch CSI every night, and that's what Bodie and Doyle do)

 

 

These days you need multiple forms of ID including a passport/driving licence to open up a bank account. Stops terrorism and money laundering etc.

[Captain Mainwaring]

 

 

Why test for finger prints or DNA when there is a bank account to trace this guy? And possibly Gumtree and a phone (although less likely to be successful). This guy's details may not even be on the database. As a last resort perhaps they will look to see if there are prints but if they find them what do they prove? That someone has touched the packet of paper (box unlikely to be useful here) at some point during the handling process. That's not a crime. They will still have to make a link between this individual, the money and the OP to prosecute.

 

Unless our scammer is completely soft in the head, then I guess he would have opened a bank account using details that weren't his own.

You know the name on the account, but you don't know the name of whoever took the money out of the account.

 

You're assuming our guy doesn't have any form - i'm betting he does. If the DNA/prints happen to be on record and tie up to this herbert then it adds to the "evidence". 

Let's say they trace the guy who owns the bank account - by the same logic as you apply he could say "it's not me, I didn't do it and I won't do it again, more to the point, you can't prove bugger all" - seems to make sense to tie as much together as possible (I watch CSI every night, and that's what Bodie and Doyle do)

 

 

These days you need multiple forms of ID including a passport/driving licence to open up a bank account. Stops terrorism and money laundering etc.

 

 

The irony is that it hasn't stopped terrorism and money laundering but that's the subject of another rant.

 

The are countless opportunities to open a simple building society account without credit facilities if this guy has moved in to a flat and the previous occupants weren't to diligent with redirecting their post - he'd soon have a council tax bill and whatever else - 

 

Go with your theory, that he has used his own bank account for fraud, then he is a sitting duck.

Our OP ideally needs to pursue a criminal investigation, after that, small claims and enforcement.

[Ethel]

Speak to the Halifax, they won't divulge any of his personal details, but they may tell you if you need to be speaking to the police if you give them the details you do have and they don't tally with their records.

[Captain Mainwaring]

Speak to the Halifax, they won't divulge any of his personal details, but they may tell you if you need to be speaking to the police if you give them the details you do have and they don't tally with their records.

 

 

^^^^ This, and tell them that you suspect identity theft, fraud, money laundering...anything you like to get them to talk to the police involved in your case.

 

Do it in writing and get them to acknowledge a copy of your letter.

[thebullet]

Cheers guys, noting this down.


In phoning the police again today, will see how far I get. Been told to phone 101.

[TheMiniDream]

They should DNA testing for this case weather it's £4000 or £40 taxes are paid for a reason! This country like I said is messed up! In theory th public pay for some murdered, some child killed, kidnapper to stay alive in prison. The country needs sorting out! What makes it stupid in sense the victim helps pay to keep its attacker in prison... That just sums our whole country up!

[Captain Mainwaring]

They should DNA testing for this case weather it's £4000 or £40 taxes are paid for a reason! This country like I said is messed up! In theory th public pay for some murdered, some child killed, kidnapper to stay alive in prison. The country needs sorting out! What makes it stupid in sense the victim helps pay to keep its attacker in prison... That just sums our whole country up!

 

Yes, it's *******, and one of the many reasons why I'm not there and don't have any desire to go back. 

I had a property broken into some time back - the attending plod wouldn't wouldn't wait the 5 minutes for the keyholder to turn up and boarded up a window without consent - the irony was it was an opening panel and he only boarded up the opening light, despite the fact that the glazing was intact. As it happened it was a cast aluminium latch that had been popped when the window was left on trickle vent - all you had to do was to shut the window properly.

 

I tried being civil with the plughole despite his attitude....but I'm afraid we got to the "do what you're bloody asked - I put the batteries in your torch" type scenario. As usual it was a round of backhanders, with a glazier sent in from a different timezone wanting to charge about £500 for a 3'x2' bit of 10mm ply - because he thinks insurance will cough up.

In conclusion, the attending plod was a real bell end, tried being polite and nice, but got the "i'm not a bloody office boy, I'm a stand in from Bodie and Doyle" attitude. 

[Carlos W]

They should DNA testing for this case weather it's £4000 or £40 taxes are paid for a reason! This country like I said is messed up! In theory th public pay for some murdered, some child killed, kidnapper to stay alive in prison. The country needs sorting out! What makes it stupid in sense the victim helps pay to keep its attacker in prison... That just sums our whole country up!

 

As I've said, most forces can do fingerprints in house, and given the items of paper, the packaging etc this is probably the best option.

 

To the OP, any update?

[thebullet]

Phoned the police, explained all. They just told me to wait for action fraud again! Ugh. Becoming tiring.