From: "Tim" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance
Subject: Re: Times: Fraud victims left in the lurch by banks
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 16:51:24 +0000 (UTC)

> > "Mike Scott" wrote
> >> Here we go again.....
> >>
> >> If there's a piece of knowledge of which
> >> only you are (initially) the custodian, ...
> >> ... and if someone else subsequently conclusively
> >> demonstrates possession of that knowledge, you are ipso
> >> facto a prime candidate for the suspicion that you divulged it.
> >
> "Tim" wrote:
> > But being a "prime candidate" does
> > not constitute *proof* that you did it.
>
> > For instance, there are often several "prime candidates" for
> > a murder, most of which are innocent.  Are you proposing
> > that they should *all* be prosecuted for the murder?
>
"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> The difference between murder and this bank/customer
> thing is that the bank is not primarily interested in
> securing a fraud conviction.  The case will be in civil court...

No, it won't get that far - it'll be considered by the Financial
Ombudsman, whose decision is *binding* on the bank.

But even if it *did* get to court :-

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> ... and the plaintiff will be the customer, not the bank.

Only for a "debit card" transaction - not for a "credit card".

With a credit card, the customer simply does not pay
when the statement arrives (or rather, pays for all *valid*
transactions and not the disputed ones).  Then the bank
would be the plaintiff in any court action, not the customer...

"Ronald Raygun" wrote
> The plaintiff will have to prove ...

I.e., "the bank will have to prove..."!!