Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

ftc.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 185 posts

Re: FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

#161

Post by bombcar »

fortran77 wrote: post #94
xsmasher wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd be surprised how targeted these scams can be. A friend's mother got an email from her synagogue, with the rabbi's name and everything, asking her to buy some gift cards to surprise some other (named) officials.

A new secretary at a company I consult for received an email saying she needed to buy gift cards for an employee. Our best guess is scammers look for people posting about their new administrative assistant jobs on LinkedIn, etc....

Many companies leak tons of information on their website; look up the CEO/President's name, find someone on Linked-in that is a new hire, guess their email based on whatever format the company uses (first.last@company, etc) and send a decent looking email or call.

It's pretty darn advanced, and can extend to texts, etc. If you don't know 'how your president talks' you can easily be bamboozled (we cover it in onboarding now, and have identified people they can always go to with questions).

Re: FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

#162

Post by noptd »

Spooky23 wrote: post #101
bpodgursky wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you are speaking without knowledge, because it usually take an extraordinary amount of blatant repeat theft for the loss protection team to act against an individual. Solo one-time shoplifters have close to a 100% chance of success without being apprehended.

There’s a well established, well documented pattern of conduct by Walmart that suggests otherwise. In a town near me, the store generates ~3000 arrests a year, to the point that the town has a police substation on the premises.

Comparing blatant theft of physical property to a possible financial scam, the latter of which the company has nowhere near the context required to make a determination on, seems a bit disingenuous, no?

Re: FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

#163

Post by FireBeyond »

listenallyall wrote: post #120
kadoban wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they shouldn't be in that role then. Maybe Walmart should be expected to employ people in these roles who are paid and trained well enough to be able to pass a test like "can you spot the most obvious scam that has ever scammed, at least once in a while?"

Perhaps, as you suggest, Wal-Mart should hire high-paid, well-trained executives from PayPal, Zelle, CashApp, Venmo or other services. God knows there's never been fraudulent transactions or scams on those platforms. You obviously have a beef with Wal-Mart, writing essentially the same comment 4 times and seemingly ignoring the fact that virtually every supermarket and check-casher in the country has a similar employ…

Yes, you're right. There's no middle ground between "3 hour morning training on using the Western Union console" and "fintech antifraud executive", none at all.

Re: FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

#164

Post by kylebenzleee »

piva00 wrote: post #148
liaukovv wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you consider yourself or the cashier to be in position to deny the man his lawful right to be stupid?

Why do you consider that total freedom of an oblivious individual fucking their finances is a good thing for society? As a society we are actually here to help others with our experiences, if the experience of a cashier with multiple fraudulent transactions can help a soul to not be a sucker, why shouldn't they use that power? Why do you consider "lawful" as the only measure of "good"?

No post body was provided.

Re: FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

#165

Post by FireBeyond »

jjeaff wrote: post #138
kwonkicker wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is preferable. I wouldn't trust a cashier to detect fraud in any trustworthy rate. That wording in the guideline is important. Suspicion of fraud is not fraud. Acting upon employee suspicion would just skyrocket costumer outbursts and complaints.

Have the employee ask 3 questions. Are you paying to claim lottery winnings? Is a nigerian prince asking you to transfer money for them? Has someone you don't know deposited money in your bank account and needs you to wire cash to someone else? If the answer is yes to any of those, decline the transfer and give them a pamphlet on common scams. This would take care of about 90% of the problem.

> If the answer is yes to any of those, decline the transfer and give them a pamphlet on common scams. This would take care of about 90% of the problem.

Decline the transfer. You would be surprised on the latter though - people have walked their family through the scam, "No, I still think it's probably legit", even gotten police involved, "ma'am, these people online are scamming you", "But what if they're not?"

Re: FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

#166

Post by noptd »

tallanvor wrote: post #129
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote: post #127

It is inconceivable to ask minimum wage Walmart employees to detect fraud, detect fake IDs, and conduct suspicious activity investigations. It costs much more money to conduct those checks than $1 or so that Walmart charges for its transfers. Walmart will simply stop providing those services, which were used primarily by disadvantaged populations and immigrants.

That's on Walmart. Obviously we don't want to make things harder for already disadvantaged communities, but we simply can't let Walmart off the hook when they specifically tell their employees to complete transactions even when they suspect fraud. There are just too many stories from Walmart employees who KNEW a person was being scammed but they were required to complete the transaction.

>Obviously we don't want to make things harder for already disadvantaged communities, but we simply can't let Walmart off the hook when they specifically tell their employees to complete transactions even when they suspect fraud.

That's a nice thought. How do you propose we meet the former when the alternatives for preventing the latter would result in increased costs being passed to those consumers?

Re: FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

#167

Post by phil21 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #101
bpodgursky wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like you are speaking without knowledge, because it usually take an extraordinary amount of blatant repeat theft for the loss protection team to act against an individual. Solo one-time shoplifters have close to a 100% chance of success without being apprehended.

There’s a well established, well documented pattern of conduct by Walmart that suggests otherwise. In a town near me, the store generates ~3000 arrests a year, to the point that the town has a police substation on the premises.

> In a town near me, the store generates ~3000 arrests a year

Of first time shoplifters? I find this incredible, as when I worked Walmart (admittedly eons ago) you had to be a very well known repeat offender to get caught. Everyone else would simply be yelled at to leave at best.

Target (from friends at the time) even had a policy to simply let thieves do their thing and document until they hit the threshold for a felony - at which time they'd take action.

Just that repeat offender list ended up with an arrest maybe every other day or so though.

I find it amazing society has changed that much in such a relatively short time. I know every store/location is different but this stat definitely blew my mine.

Re: FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

#168

Post by kadoban »

listenallyall wrote: post #120
kadoban wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they shouldn't be in that role then. Maybe Walmart should be expected to employ people in these roles who are paid and trained well enough to be able to pass a test like "can you spot the most obvious scam that has ever scammed, at least once in a while?"

Perhaps, as you suggest, Wal-Mart should hire high-paid, well-trained executives from PayPal, Zelle, CashApp, Venmo or other services. God knows there's never been fraudulent transactions or scams on those platforms. You obviously have a beef with Wal-Mart, writing essentially the same comment 4 times and seemingly ignoring the fact that virtually every supermarket and check-casher in the country has a similar employ…

> ignoring the fact that virtually every supermarket and check-casher in the country has a similar employee running the Western Union desk.

My stance applies to them as well, if they have similarly weak policies on fraud.

Re: FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

#169

Post by phil21 »

danaris wrote: post #157
roenxi wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a raw question of power here - who has final say over how the money gets spent? They own the money. Letting old people get scammed is unpleasant. Letting old people be disenfranchised by random clerks and passers by is substantially worse. All the outcomes are bad, the one implied as an improvement here is much worse than the status quo.

You see old people losing their life savings—the only money they have to live on—as being better than them having certain very obviously fraudulent financial transactions questioned, and potentially delayed?

This is an incredibly disengenious take.

Old people (or anyone) being scammed out of their life savings is bad. Full Stop.

What is worse is some random person in line being able to speak up and have someone's bank account effectively frozen. Yes, this story is about Walmart but the real issue is banks here, in my personal direct experience.

This topic is near and dear to me as I have personally seen how the banks do not consider money in your account to be your money - it is their money you can use in a prescribed manner. Step even a little off that reservation and you will find how much power others have over what you thought was your money. It can take months and years to resolve, and you generally have very little to no legal recourse.

Random dude in a line, or a random $18/hr bank/walmart cashier is not an appropriate place to put your fraud detection and denial systems in place. Advising a transaction is fraudulent is A-OK in my book. Having customers sign release forms - cool. Actually denying funds? This is something I, and others, find absolutely morally and ethically repugnant. Your money is yours to do with what you wish, including lighting it on fire. It is not your place to tell me I cannot do that.

Up until the point I do something illegal with my money, no one should have a single iota of say in how I spend, move, or deploy it.

Re: FTC Sues Walmart for Facilitating Money Transfer Fraud

#170

Post by roenxi »

danaris wrote: post #157
roenxi wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a raw question of power here - who has final say over how the money gets spent? They own the money. Letting old people get scammed is unpleasant. Letting old people be disenfranchised by random clerks and passers by is substantially worse. All the outcomes are bad, the one implied as an improvement here is much worse than the status quo.

You see old people losing their life savings—the only money they have to live on—as being better than them having certain very obviously fraudulent financial transactions questioned, and potentially delayed?

I see a the risk of some very cynical younger people who will discover that (while the loving bonds of family are all very well) they can make money by seizing their parents assets. There are some real monsters out there, especially once there is money on the line. Family courts go through horror cases on a daily basis. That risk of elder abuse is worse than scammers and much more pressing.

In this story the person in question did have their transaction questioned. Having it delayed is meaningless, there is no reason to believe a delay would have made them change their mind. This is a question of whether it is their money, the banks money or someone else's money and the correct answer is it belongs to the gentleman who is getting scammed. People will suffer less on average if we let them spend their own money as a matter of policy.

Post reply on HN