Live data from Hacker News

Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

warren.senate.gov

91–100 of 105 posts

Re: Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

#91
post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point of a voided check is to prevent an issue in case you make a mistake manually recording your checking and routing numbers. It’s just an insurance policy- there’s really no reason not to do it.

yes its good that its just to help avoid user error instead of a real requirement, its bad that its masqueraded as a real requirement

It’s the easiest way to collect this info from most people. Getting a voided check will pass the info from people who don’t know the account number and routing number.

So it’s a good, real requirement because it works more frequently than any other alternatives.

Re: Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

#92
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes its good that its just to help avoid user error instead of a real requirement, its bad that its masqueraded as a real requirement

It’s the easiest way to collect this info from most people. Getting a voided check will pass the info from people who don’t know the account number and routing number. So it’s a good, real requirement because it works more frequently than any other alternatives.

at least photoshop works and I don't have to go get a real check or order checkbooks

you know what works even better though? copy and paste. banking and technology illiterate wage slaves aren't the only ones that wind up with employment on occassion. payroll companies should offer multiple ways to get this done.

Re: Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

#93
post #85
post #9

In 2009 I met some Israeli developers in Atlanta who were trying to get meetings with some of the banks in the area (there are a number of corporate bank offices here for big banks) to hawk their direct payment system, which was exactly what Zelle is. I contracted with them and got them some meetings, I was basically a rent-a-laowai for them to get meetings here. I never heard what happened to them after that, and wh…

It’s not a unique product and I worked for some bank startups in the early 2000s trying trying the thing. And really this was the original idea for PayPal, dwolla, and lots of other digital cash payment systems.

Nearly all of which have pivoted from the free at point of use model since moving money for consumers at no cost is not often profitable.

Re: Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The common Zelle scams I've heard of rely on how Zelle doesn't work like cash. It is possible to reverse Zelle payments, but only in very specific circumstances like compromised bank creds. So the scammer will manipulate you into giving a clean, irreversible payment in exchange for a dirty one that later gets reversed. It's also a lot easier to send like $5K to some faceless entity with Zelle than with cash.

TIL! Tricky.

I assume everyone's familiar with the overpayment scam - it's probably the second most common cheque scam after simply passing bad cheques in the first place. You're accidentally paid too much, and are asked to return the remainder, or pass it on to someone else. Then the original cheque bounces and you're out product plus the remainder you passed along.

This version relies on banks being required to make "funds available" in a timeframe that's often shorter than how long it takes a cheque to actually clear - so you can dig yourself into a hole before the cheque finally bounces.

The zelle version is essentially the same thing. Someone "accidentally" sends you a sum, and being a nice, reasonable person, you return it. The problem is this isn't a rollback; you don't (can't) revert their transaction - you create a second transaction.

So when the source of the original transaction turns out to be fraudulent - and as the parent post says, fraudulent can be reverted, the house always wins - that first transaction is reverted. The second, where you "returned" their overpayment, is an entirely distinct transaction and needs to be fought separately. And it's a much harder fight to win, because it doesn't involve the house winning.

(And yes, this could be almost entirely mitigated by having a user-facing return/revert/refund function that undoes the original transaction instead of creating a second.)

Re: Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

#95
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s the easiest way to collect this info from most people. Getting a voided check will pass the info from people who don’t know the account number and routing number. So it’s a good, real requirement because it works more frequently than any other alternatives.

at least photoshop works and I don't have to go get a real check or order checkbooks you know what works even better though? copy and paste. banking and technology illiterate wage slaves aren't the only ones that wind up with employment on occassion. payroll companies should offer multiple ways to get this done.

I worked an a site that did lots of ach transactions.

We had so many support tickets and errors from people making errors with entering routing and account numbers. Like 20% of all new payees enters bounced back or went to the wrong place. This worked out because new payees were rare since people typically pay the same people over and over.

I think HR does the cancelled check thing because the risk of error is so great and consequential. If people’s paycheck fails, that’s bad.

Walking people through cutting and pasting is harder than “give me a check.”

Re: Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

#96
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a business account? I have a $1500/day limit. Looking it up it seems like for popular banks it tops out at $2500/day, and some go as low as $500/day.

How privileged is it to say that a $1500 loss is "hardly worth noting"? Median take home pay is under $45k, so that's more than half of the median paycheck gone in a single mistake.

Obviously for an individual person it can be bad, bad enough to cause problems that take months to solve, but not lose your life savings and retirement bad. The report identifies a few hundred million dollars in losses but my point is more that for instance there are single "pig butchering" case losses in the millions (and totals in the billions, which is likely an underestimate because some people feel too ashamed to report to ic3.gov) and not much is being done in the way of educating people on how to avoid being swindled.

Re: Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

#97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you are getting the Senate report's point. It's titled "How Consumers Defrauded on Zelle are Left High and Dry by the Banks that Created It " When you say it would undermine the entire point of Zelle, I don't think that's the Senate's concern. I think the Senate's concern is that banks have created a money transfer system where they eschew their legal obligation to reimburse all unauthorized payments.

But a payment as part of a fraud is often an nauthorized payment. This is what people don't realize. An authorized payment is one that you agreed to make; if you didn't get what you expected in return, that doesn't make the payment unauthorized. Banks have no legal obligation to refund authorized payments, any more than they have obligations to refund people who took cash out of ATMs that they lost as part of a fraud…

I'm not sure how that's actually a response to what I wrote. You are just disputing some categories of payments. It has nothing to do with the fact that the banks created a money transfer system where they eschew their legal obligations.

Re: Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

#98
post #85
post #9

In 2009 I met some Israeli developers in Atlanta who were trying to get meetings with some of the banks in the area (there are a number of corporate bank offices here for big banks) to hawk their direct payment system, which was exactly what Zelle is. I contracted with them and got them some meetings, I was basically a rent-a-laowai for them to get meetings here. I never heard what happened to them after that, and wh…

It’s not a unique product and I worked for some bank startups in the early 2000s trying trying the thing. And really this was the original idea for PayPal, dwolla, and lots of other digital cash payment systems.

Well, unlike PayPal with had been around for years, this was basically SWIFT for the US, which is kind of what Zelle is. From what I heard the big problem they faced was banks couldn't see how to monetize it.

Re: Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

#99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But a payment as part of a fraud is often an nauthorized payment. This is what people don't realize. An authorized payment is one that you agreed to make; if you didn't get what you expected in return, that doesn't make the payment unauthorized. Banks have no legal obligation to refund authorized payments, any more than they have obligations to refund people who took cash out of ATMs that they lost as part of a fraud…

I'm not sure how that's actually a response to what I wrote. You are just disputing some categories of payments. It has nothing to do with the fact that the banks created a money transfer system where they eschew their legal obligations.

You'll have to be more specific about what you think their legal obligations are, then. As far as I'm aware, Regulation E requires banks to resolve errors appropriately, including unauthorized transfers. It does not require them to reverse arbitrary transfers, including ones where a fraud was perpetrated on their customer.

Re: Consumers defrauded on Zelle are left high and dry by the banks that created it [pdf]

#100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how that's actually a response to what I wrote. You are just disputing some categories of payments. It has nothing to do with the fact that the banks created a money transfer system where they eschew their legal obligations.

You'll have to be more specific about what you think their legal obligations are, then. As far as I'm aware, Regulation E requires banks to resolve errors appropriately, including unauthorized transfers. It does not require them to reverse arbitrary transfers, including ones where a fraud was perpetrated on their customer.

The report is explicit about it, I'm not sure why you are having difficulty with that. The report mentions, for example, when their accounts are hacked. That's just one example. Are you confused or are you just being obtuse? Someone else provided this exact answer to your identical question, upthread, prior to your asking me the same exact thing here again.
Post reply on HN