On the above date and time, I responded to 6333 Ridge Road, (lobby of the Port Richey Police Department), in reference to a fraud report.
I made contact with the complainant, Dolores Reichert, who stated she had an unauthorized $2500.00 transfer out of her saving account. Reichert further stated that there were suspicious incidents involving her cellphone and had been emailed account activity from her bank, Wells Fargo, that she did not initiate. Reichert advised that only one unauthorized transaction occurred and that she has started the process with Wells Fargo for fraudulent activity, which included changing her account information.
Reichert was able to provide account documents showing an electronic transfer using a bank application, Zelle. Upon review of the documents, a transfer on December 14, 2017, in the amount of $2500.00 was made to a Howard Pierre, with a reference code, RP042VMSFV. No other forwarding account information was provided. Reichert advised she did not know a Howard Pierre, nor about the bank application, Zelle. I explained Reichert that Zelle was a transfer service and not a fraudulent tool. However, I advised Reichert to deactivate her Zelle account to avoid any further incidents.
…show more content…
I advised Reichert if the account holder wanted to file a report for suspicious activity, they would need to do so in person at the police department and to reference this case. I further advised Reichert that if Wells Fargo provided her any further information about Howard Pierre, to forward it to me. At this time, Reichert was unable to provide any further
Edmond’s was a suspect fraud investigator that worked for Discover credit card. He called to report his company flagged some purchases made on a Discover credit card with the cardholder being James Frank Boucher. Edmond was aware James Frank Boucher was issued a second Discover credit card due to previously reported fraud activity on the previous account. Discover contacted James Frank Boucher via telephone on 09/03/2016 at 1100 hours. Discover questioned James Frank Boucher about 3 transactions made on 09/02/2016. James Frank Boucher denied using his credit card for the 3 transactions. All 3 transactions were committed on 09/02/2016. 1) Circle K located at 111 E. Walnut St. Murphysboro, Illinois in the amount of $8.64 at 1241 hours. 2) Wal-Mart located at 6495 Country Club Rd. Murphysboro, Illinois in the amount of $73.40 at 0104 hours. 3) Walgreens located at 503 Walnut St. Murphysboro, Illinois in the amount of $1.94 at 0952 hours. The suspect attempted to make a cash advance at Circle K and Walgreens, but was declined. Edmond indicated the reason for the report to the local authorities was due to James Frank Boucher having a second report of fraud and believed it was necessary for the authorities to investigate. Discover reimbursed James Frank Boucher’s account after learning the 3 transactions listed above were fraudulent. I advised Edmond there was a report on file
Skimming. Because the wire transfers and cashier's checks were outside the accounts payable system (book keeping system), this is indicative of skimming. The wire transfers and checks transactions when posted to the bank accounts are historical and should be identified as part of the reconciliation process. The case states, "...many account reconciliations were either not prepared or were not maintained as part of Koss’s accounting records. To the extent that reconciliations were conducted, they were improperly performed by the same persons who initiated or recorded the transactions (i.e. Sachdeva or Mulvaney)"
on September 8, 2016 Wells Fargo’s unethical behavior was reveal when the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency fined Wells Fargo $185 million because over 2 million credit card and bank accounts were fraudulently open or applied for in customer names without their knowledge (Blake, 2016).
For Tenth National Bank, we have reason to believe that the client intercepted the paper confirmation. After we sent the paper confirmation to the bank, we received an email from Lou Jennings stating that the bank forwarded the confirmation directly to their office instead of sending it to the audit team. In addition, Mr. Jennings provided login credentials and a link to the bank’s website, which did not appear to be reliable. As per the video, “How to Fight Confirmation Fraud”, presented by the founder of confirmation.com, Brian Fox, a fictitious website can be created easily. Our skepticism toward the reliability of the website is based on the unresponsiveness of most of the links on the site; the only link that works is the login button. In addition the website appeared dated and rudimentary. Another factor we found quite strange is that the website only offers paper statement deliveries, which we find highly unusual since paper statements are easier to modify. Furthermore, based on the tracking provided by USPS, the letter is still in the shipping process with no indication that Tenth National Bank has officially received the request for confirmation. This further supports our theory that Lou Jennings intercepted the Tenth National Bank confirmation letter. In our o...
On 04-29-16 at approximately 0951 hours, I was dispatched to 120 W. Bellevue Drive regarding a grand theft auto report. Upon my arrival, I contacted Victim Richard Henry Garcia, who told me the following:
At about 1940 HRS I arrived at Deputy Melchers location and made contact with Deputy Melcher and Gary Jacobs the Reporting Person/ Victim. As I pulled onto the property, which was on the west side of the road, I observed a large tin building, with a walk-in door and a large over head door facing to the East. The large overhead door was open and inside I could see several automobiles.
I contacted and detained Hunter, pending further investigation. Officer Bluem #1003 and Officer Baffigo arrived on scene to assist me. Officer Baffigo drove to 260 S. Raymond Avenue and contacted Bushart for a Field Show-Up to determine if Hunter was the battery suspect.
The case involves the city of Philadelphia taking legal actions against Wells Fargo for violating the Fair Housing Act of 1968, which essentially prohibits discrimination in the housing industry. Philadelphia
There were outstanding balances and the additional current month’s charges. Folole's husband contacted the energy company during her hospital visit to privacy laws. Mercury Energy would only speak with Folole since she was the account owner.
...only hear about the different ways that criminals are committing electronic fraud such as hacking in to somebody’s computer and stealing their credit or debit card information. There are also cases where peoples identities have been stolen and whole other lives have been built on them by another person. It all started with check fraud and although it’s not talked about as much anymore, it is still a very large concern for most business owners and people like you and me. The tips that have been provided for us can help protect us from fraud, but it is up to us to take the extra steps to prevent check fraud. We cannot sign up for check fraud protection the same way we could for credit or debit card protection or to help protect ourselves from identity theft. There are processes in place to help us once we’ve experienced check fraud but it is up to us to avoid it.
They said to the people who support Wells Fargo, “if you feel like you received an account that you didn’t want, come in and see us and we will make it right” (Peter Conti-Brown, “Why Wells Fargo Might Not Survive its Fake Accounts Scandal”). I believe that Wells should do more than just talk to their customers if they experienced one of the fake numbers. It seems like they were and still are taking about this scandal like it wasn’t a big deal, when the case is still relevant today. Like I briefly mentioned above, the most unethical behavior about this is the fact that not just a couple members were involved. There were a couple thousand employees involved who created new bank and credit card accounts for customers without their
Wells Fargo account fraud scandal One of the most recent white-collar crimes involved Wells Fargo, a banking and financial services provider. In 2016, San Francisco-based bank Wells Fargo (WFC) employees secretly created millions of unauthorized bank and credit card accounts without permission of their customers. Opening about 1.5 million fraudulent deposit accounts and submitting 565,443 credit card applications allowed Wells Fargo employees to boost their sales targets and receive bonuses. Consequently, customers were wrongly charged fees for accounts they did not know existed. In this business crime scenario, Wells Fargo is involved in paying $185 million in fines and refunding $5 million to affected customers.
Wells Fargo is the third largest bank holding business in the United States. They were established in 1852, and have been widely trusted and generally scandal free since their company began doing business (Wells Fargo, 2016). That is, until July of 2016. In 2016 it was revealed that Wells Fargo’s employees were creating fraudulent accounts in peoples’ names without their permission or knowledge. The damages were severe, and the company has had to completely rebuild their reputation. While the company received a lot of social stigma through their fiasco, their finances were surprisingly unchanged. While the company is still dealing with the publicity of the scandal, they are handling it gracefully, and with the policies that they
Samantha made an appointment with Wells Fargo, who stated that they could create a regular bank account and give Samantha a credit card with a five-hundred-dollar limit. The bank clerk, Christina suggested that if Samantha wanted a savings account, she should go to a different bank, this way she is not consistently checking her savings account so that it can properly build up over time (Delicata, 2017). Christina was also able to go over the monthly expenses and fill out a 2017 budget sheet (See Appendix D).
Internet fraud is a problem that has become very widespread in recent years. Internet fraud was first monitored by the Internet Fraud Watch organization in 1996. The Fraud Watch has stated that each year after its inception internet fraud has increased. In 1998, the Securities and Exchange Commission established the Office of Internet Enforcement to fight online securities fraud which was another sign of how large the problem is becoming (Clausing). Despite the SEC¡¦s efforts this problem has not been alleviated, but instead continues to grow. According to the Internet Fraud Complaint Center (IFCC), ¡§the total dollar loss from all referred internet fraud cases was $54 million in 2002; this amount is almost three times as much than was lost in 2001¡¨(IFCC). This increase shows that the problem of internet fraud is becoming more widespread. The most widely reported type of internet fraud by the IFCC is online auction fraud. In 2002, 46.1% of all internet fraud complaints were online auction related (IFCC). Because of how many people are affected by online auction fraud alone we decided to focus our study solely on this one type of fraud.