It could be you!

Sponsored Links
Most excellent. I hope they can prove it was paid with by a stolen card. Should be able to?
 
Sponsored Links
Interesting case, if it is proven that the card was bought with a stolen debit card would the owner of the debit card be entitled to the winnings, or would it be a case because the scratch card was bought illegally the Lottery company could refuse to pay out by claiming the winnings were the proceeds of crime.
 
Vinty said:
Interesting case, if it is proven that the card was bought with a stolen debit card would the owner of the debit card be entitled to the winnings, or would it be a case because the scratch card was bought illegally the Lottery company could refuse to pay out by claiming the winnings were the proceeds of crime.
Click to expand...
I doubt it, because the owner of the card wasn't the purchaser of the ticket, and didn't consent to the purchase.

I reckon it's a simple one for Camelot, and will be one of

Give to good causes fund
Keep money themselves
Ensure another jackpot is in the next tranche of printed scratchcards
 
If the card was used in a 'chip & pin' transaction, how did they know the pin?

If the card was used 'contactless', then it shows up the shortcomings of that system.

How many people know that if you allow anyone else (including close family) to use your card in whatever capacity, it is theoretically fraudulent use?

And in any case should you reveal to your bank that anyone else has done either of the above, then you won't be compensated should you be a victim of card fraud!
 
motorbiking said:
breach of contract perhaps, but not fraud:
Click to expand...
Well my bank must have got it wrong then.
Apparently I visited a couple of atms in South America a while back.
I was asked if I ever let anyone else, including family, use my card.
Answered no, but asked 'what if...'
I was told that any transactions could then be investigated as possibly fraudulent, and of course no repayment for the actual fraud.
 
ellal said:
Well my bank must have got it wrong then.
Apparently I visited a couple of atms in South America a while back.
I was asked if I ever let anyone else, including family, use my card.
Answered no, but asked 'what if...'
I was told that any transactions could then be investigated as possibly fraudulent, and of course no repayment for the actual fraud.
Click to expand...

You do understand the difference between allowing someone to use your card and them using your card and then at a later date using your card without your permission?
i.e. the latter is potentially fraud/theft.

I posted the link, because Section 2(1) of the Fraud Act, requires both element a) and b) to be true. In the first example only element a) might be true. Dishonesty by itself is not a crime.
 
motorbiking said:
You do understand the difference between allowing someone to use your card and them using your card and then at a later date using your card without your permission?
i.e. the latter is potentially fraud/theft.
Click to expand...
I understand that...

However I have been told that any other such usages (prior or after) the fraud claim could also thus be investigated in the same way, even if permission was given to use the card.

For that very reason there are robust rules for those dealing with vulnerable people, which families do not appear to understand could also apply to them!
 
Along with your claim. i.e. transaction xyz wasn't me. They will investigate to make sure you aren't also trying to defraud them (or the retailer).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top