Peter of England and WeaRe not a Bank

[letissier14]

Just seen this on the exposing WeRe Bank facebook page

https://www.facebook.com/groups/exposingwerebankfraud/

[mufc1959]

To mfc, you might want to call CIBC and let them know that someone is using their number, if they were like the banks I used to work for, they won't be much amused and will call down the wrath of the heavens, particularly since they know who is doing it. Credit card fraud is something they don't take lightly even if it is unintended and VERY VERY inept.

Reported to CIBC via email to fraud@cibc.com. Anyone else who wants to report PoE, please feel free.

[guilty]

4500 81 is definitely Interdin Ecuador.

[mufc1959]

4500 81 is definitely Interdin Ecuador.

Yes, I know the full IIN is for Ecuador, but CIBC uses 4500 (plus other numbers). See below.

http://tinyurl.com/jsrsgk9

I think we're more likely to see action by CIBC than through Ecuador.

[Zeke_the_Meek]

Andrew Jackson: Can these function the same as the cheques, ie cancelling debts? Or are they purely for starting a new currency free of the rothschild banks?

Yes, Andrew. They'll function EXACTLY the same and as well as the cheques did.

[afateworsethandeath]

If POE is so keen to overthrow the dirty, cheating, devious Rothchild banks, why has he decided to call his ridiculous entity a bank? At the very least it is grossly hypocritical

[afateworsethandeath]

How do people actually fall for this? The most basic of errors appear on the Were Bank website

It talks about offering two injunctions for members to use and in the next sentence mentions three injunctions

WeRe Bank offers two injunctions for members to now adopt as we move forward and are enunciated simply as follows:

THREE 3 INJUNCTIONS

The amateur nature of the whole scam makes it laughable. How have so many people been taken in?

[Pox]

If POE is so keen to overthrow the dirty, cheating, devious Rothchild banks, why has he decided to call his ridiculous entity a bank?

I think he is dyslectic (no offence intended, my daughter is dyslectic)

[hucknallred]

Screen shot shortly before deletion.

For a con man, he's a bloody terrible liar. He could have said anything here - oh, that was just a prototype, I was holding my car keys, whatever. Heck, why say anything if you intend to delete it minutes later?

But nope, sticking to the "derrrrr technically it's not my hand, CHECK MATE" excuse which neither answers anything or really makes any sense.

He's also banned me that Facebook profile from replying.
Plenty more of those can be created

[NOACROSS]

Arse:
(In relation to the earlier shared incident where a WeRe idiot decided to try to buy a car from my business using a WeRe 'cheque' below is the latest correspondence from the police. Thoughts please:
--------------------------------------------
Dear Mr xxx

I am writing to you with an update regarding the incident involving WeRe and Mr Xxx

The situation has changed after being looked into by DS Xxx from the Fraud Investigation Team.

She has made contact with Mr Xxxx and discussed the incident with him. He has accepted that the transaction with <you> will not be going through and he will be making no further attempts to follow this up with the garage.

Ds Xxxx has spoken to Mr Xxx about the well documented concerns surrounding WeRe, and will be following this up with the Financial Conduct Authority so that they are aware.

At this time, Mr Xxxx is not being treated as a suspect, as we cannot class him as this purely for being a member of the 'bank', and the matter is not being investigated any further by us, as all of the relevant parties are aware and it has been reported to Action Fraud.

I have scanned all of the documents provided by yourself onto the report, should we need to refer back to them at any point in the future.

If you have any further issues with this male, or any other such incident, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Should you wish to discuss this update further, I am next on duty on Friday and am happy to call you then.

The officer in the case is: Xxxxxx

[hucknallred]

Thoughts please:

Translation:

We really can't be arsed to do anything.

[TheNewSaint]

I found this sentence unclear:

the matter is not being investigated any further by us, as all of the relevant parties are aware and it has been reported to Action Fraud.

I can't tell if this means "the case against Mr Xxxx is closed", or "the case against Mr Xxxx is still open, but we cannot proceed any further with it, so we referred it to the body that can." You might ask for clarification on that. (Disclaimer: I am not from the UK, and the answer to that may be implicit in some way I'm not noticing.)

On a related note:

At this time, Mr Xxxx is not being treated as a suspect, as we cannot class him as this purely for being a member of the 'bank'

But that's not the whole story. He's not just a member of the bank; he tried to acquire goods from you by writing a cheque drawn on that bank. Does that not constitute cheque fraud? (It's possible that it may not.)

If nothing else, it sounds like he got a talking-to from the police and Action Fraud. That could be enough to teach him a lesson.

[Pox]

Thoughts please:

Translation:

We really can't be arsed to do anything.

I agree.

I despair of our local police - a hot potato, oh dear, 'ring crimestoppers (anonymously if you like)' and into the black hole it all goes.

And then they wonder why the general public don't pass info to them.

[littleFred]

A successful prosecution against the cheque-writer would need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he knew the cheque was dud and wouldn't pay for a tin of beans.

This is a difficulty the police have under UK law. So yes, the police have filed it under "too difficult, no further action".

[hucknallred]

A successful prosecution against the cheque-writer would need to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that he knew the cheque was dud and wouldn't pay for a tin of beans.

This is a difficulty the police have under UK law. So yes, the police have filed it under "too difficult, no further action".

Indeed, the only times you see fraudsters convicted is when other bodies (Trading Standards etc.) have done all the legwork.

[Gregg]

On the cards, a few thoughts I have. With no magnetic strip on the back they can only be used in the US by manual entry of the number, which would fail and likely signal back "Retain Card" as opposed to simply "Decline", if not from it being a non existent number (16 digits makes it like winning the lottery three weeks in a row to have an accidental valid number). Oh wait, it cannot be entered manually without at least an expiration date and usually the CCV, which it also lacks, so no go. If it really has a chip in it, that might be on purpose, because if you can't swipe it or key it in, the smarter sucker might look for a merchant with a chip reader instead, which lets him keep the card in his own possession, which still won't work because, well, the chips are even more secure and the technical chance of an accidental valid on that is like winning the lottery every week for a year.... I also caught that the numbers are sequential, so even if they were valid, anyone as smart as the people who caught that now have a few thousand valid credit cards in someone else's name
In the US, attempting to use one of these at any merchant who doesn't still use carbon paper and a slider to process cards would probably end with you trying to explain to the Police or better, Secret Service that you are pretty stupid and they shouldn't keep you overnight, whether for evaluation or waiting to be arraigned.

[Gregg]

Oh, forgot, as soon a Visa catches on (they as the processor will be much more likely to be the controlling party in the process than the actual bank) the whole range of the cards, even the valid ones from Ecuador, are going to be flagged and the electronic version of the denied numbers book (anyone else remember when merchants got a pulp paper booklet every week with phonebook like listings of invalid numbers?) is going to update on the ones that are bad, and as the victim in the movie Criminal Activity so eloquently put it "count on it, someone is getting invoiced for this", good movie.

And count on it, if they use them over on this side of the pond, someone is getting invoiced for it.

[Gregg]

Credit Card security is to math geeks like me a fascinating process. For instance, your Mastercard has 16 digits in the account number and on the card, but did you know that encoded into that number is a formula that can include a digit or digits that you never know yourself, and noone at your bank has access to, its just present and associated with your account number and if its not included in the transaction transmittal, it declines...

Then there's this, shamelessly copy/pasted from another site because I'm lazy and still one handed as far as typing goes....


LUHN Formula (Mod 10) for Validation of Primary Account Number

The following steps are required to validate the primary account number:
Step 1: Double the value of alternate digits of the primary account number beginning with the second digit from the right (the first right--hand digit is the check digit.)

Step 2: Add the individual digits comprising the products obtained in Step 1 to each of the unaffected digits in the original number.

Step 3: The total obtained in Step 2 must be a number ending in zero (30, 40, 50, etc.) for the account number to be validated.

I would add that some Luhn Formulas are done from left to right instead of right to left...

So even considering that after the number that indicates which bank leaving only 10 digits (well 8 after another thingy) there are still something like 14,000 possible credit card numbers for every person in Federation Space...

[SteveUK]

Some stark dissent over on Petey's FB page. How long will post last?

[NOACROSS]

I found this sentence unclear:

the matter is not being investigated any further by us, as all of the relevant parties are aware and it has been reported to Action Fraud.

I can't tell if this means "the case against Mr Xxxx is closed", or "the case against Mr Xxxx is still open, but we cannot proceed any further with it, so we referred it to the body that can." You might ask for clarification on that. (Disclaimer: I am not from the UK, and the answer to that may be implicit in some way I'm not noticing.)

On a related note:

At this time, Mr Xxxx is not being treated as a suspect, as we cannot class him as this purely for being a member of the 'bank'

I agree, it is a little ambiguous but (after my initial anger receded and) I re-read her reply, I'm of the same feeling and I've asked her to clarify further and to call me.

I also replied asking for an official comment on PoE still getting away with this scam, and I informed her that he is now continuing on the fraud with a new 'card scam' in the offing that surely the should be interested in.