Retiree who lost close to $650K in fraud scheme sues credit union and bank

GoneFishin

GoneFishin

Well-known Member
Location
Canada 🏠⛺🚤
Winnipeg retiree who lost close to $650K in fraud scheme sues credit union and bank

Peter Squire’s lawsuit alleges seniors are more vulnerable to fraud

A Winnipeg man who says he lost nearly $650,000 in retirement funds to an alleged fraud scheme is suing a credit union and a bank in what the lawsuit calls a case of 'financial elder abuse'.

Peter Squire is suing Access Credit Union and the Royal Bank of Canada after he fell victim to a fraudster in November 2022.

Squire is a 68-year old retiree and a lawsuit he filed Thursday at the Court of King's Bench says senior citizens "are more vulnerable to fraud and financial abuse than other individuals."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-retiree-fraud-credit-union-bank-1.7325174
 

While I would agree banks or credit unions could have a speed bump sort of thing for large withdrawals or transfers .. How do they know it a legitimate transaction if someone transferred funds and was held up and that caused financial harm as the payment was delayed they would be blamed too.
Most scam things stopped at banks etc usually was done by an alert teller or employee rather then a bank CU policy here in states....

I know there are many targeting older or vulnerable clients but how is a bank suppose to determine that perhaps put some alert as every one turns a certain age? or maybe put a box to check when opening an account that wants them to watch A persons spending and make judgement for them?

I understand many people who want to blame others when taken in by a scam/ con artist but sometimes it just comes down to personal responsibility
 
Last edited:
Anybody can file a lawsuit about anything. Just because someone initiates a lawsuit doesn't mean it won't be tossed out in a second. Mr. Squires ordered the bank to make those transfers, the bank followed his orders. If Squires used his account to buy a pack of cigarettes, should the bank have denied the transfer because smoking is bad for people?
Squires just got a creative lawyer to try to recoup some money in nuisance suit.
 

I don’t blame him for trying but I believe that he needs to take responsibility for not doing his homework.

I would lose my mind if somebody at my bank or brokerage house was allowed to challenge my right to move my money.

Why is it that everyone feels like they deserve a do over or that someone else should take more steps to protect them than they are willing to take themselves.
 
It's time for banks to set up guardrails for people to voluntarily add to their accounts. One idea - single or combined withdrawals over an amount the account owner specifies ($10K? $50K?) would automatically trigger financial institutions to contact the account owners' previously specified trusted third party. They'd be required to verify the withdrawal isn't fraudulent or coerced.

If I suddenly decided to wire transfer $50K from a financial institution, I'd sure want them to make sure it's on the up and up.

The man om this story was victimized and defrauded by tricksters. While he obviously has responsibility for safe keeping of his own funds, it's also true these fraudsters are slick, believable and persistent.

If some financial institutions are forced by courts or legislative acts to refund money lost this way, they'll quickly set up creative solutions to prevent future losses.
 
StarSong said:
It's time for banks to set up guardrails for people to voluntarily add to their accounts. One idea - single or combined withdrawals over an amount the account owner specifies ($10K? $50K?) would automatically trigger financial institutions to contact the account owners' previously specified trusted third party. They'd be required to verify the withdrawal isn't fraudulent or coerced.

If I suddenly decided to wire transfer $50K from a financial institution, I'd sure want them to make sure it's on the up and up.

The man om this story was victimized and defrauded by tricksters. While he obviously has responsibility for safe keeping of his own funds, it's also true these fraudsters are slick, believable and persistent.

If some financial institutions are forced by courts or legislative acts to refund money lost this way, they'll quickly set up creative solutions to prevent future losses.
Click to expand...
Star... every bank I deal with gives the option of setting up alerts online with monetary limits for both deposits and withdrawals. My credit union does too and this post reminded to set up mine at the credit union. Options are given to receive those alerts via text message or emails.

I don't know if Mr Squire knew he has those options or if he has online access. And I don't know if customers can ask bank representatives to set up alerts for them.

it's too bad that that happened to him but he most certainly bears some (if not all) of the responsibility. There's no way in hell I would get a cold call from somebody I don't know and follow their instructions to transfer large amounts of money. I have received emails from my financial institutions warning customers about that scam, saying their representatives will never call and ask for sensitive information.
 
Last edited:
Some banks let you add a warning person of your choice. If they see something odd they notify that person. “Mr. Grandad is trying to transfer $167,000 to Boris Rokivich in Belarus.”
 
Last edited:
OneEyedDiva said:
Star... every bank I deal with gives the option of setting up alerts online with monetary limits for both deposits and withdrawals. My credit union does too and this post reminded to set up mine at the credit union. Options are given to receive those alerts via text message or emails.

I don't know if Mr Squire knew he has those options or if he has online access. And I don't know if customers can ask bank representatives to set up alerts for them.

it's too bad that that happened to him but he most certainly bears some (if not all) of the responsibility. There's no way in hell I would get a cold call from somebody I don't know and follow their instructions to transfer large amounts of money. I have received emails from my financial institutions warning customers about that scam, saying their representatives will never call and ask for sensitive information.
Click to expand...
I also have alerts set up on my accounts, but if I willfully withdrew large amounts to send it to some scammer, I'd ignore the alerts. I'm talking about adding a second (trusted) person to virtually look over my shoulder, and could say, "Mom, what's going on? Why are you transferring $50K to an account that's brand new to you?"
 
StarSong said:
I also have alerts set up on my accounts, but if I willfully withdrew large amounts to send it to some scammer, I'd ignore the alerts. I'm talking about adding a second (trusted) person to virtually look over my shoulder, and could say, "Mom, what's going on? Why are you transferring $50K to an account that's brand new to you?"
Click to expand...
For me, if I get to the point where I need a second set of eyes on my finances there are bigger issues that need to be addressed about my ability to live independently.
 
I should add that in my present frame of mind, it's unlikely I'd be scammed. However, none of us knows what cognitive deficits we might suffer in the future or how some slick snake oil salesman might stumble upon us when we're having a weak moment.

My FIL, who'd worked as a flight dispatcher (so no slouch intellectually), was scammed out of at least $10K and it would have been much more if his caregiver didn't happen to pick up a telephone extension (to clock in for work) while the scammers were on the line giving instructions for sending them more money. CG told my FIL to hang up NOW, and called my husband immediately.

We had FIL's number forwarded to my business line so it rang there rather than at his house (I changed my outgoing message to an unidentifying, "I can't get to the phone right now or am on another line. Please leave a message.")

I'm here to tell you, these guys were relentless. They phoned dozens of times a day, during all hours of the day and night and threatened me if I didn't put him on the phone. They even sent someone to his house, wanting to take him to the bank(!!!) but the CG was there and said he was calling 911. After that his driveway gate was padlocked shut.

FIL became terrified and agreed to go to assisted living, where he was safe from these predators. The experience was a nightmare for us all.
 
Aunt Bea said:
For me, if I get to the point where I need a second set of eyes on my finances there are bigger issues that need to be addressed about my ability to live independently.
Click to expand...
Maybe, maybe not. Other than the scamming, FIL was perfectly safe in his home with CG and his family's help. We saw him a couple of times a week and DH sat with him twice a month to pay household bills. DH wrote out the checks and FIL signed them. (MIL had already passed.)

FIL sent the scammers the cash he had in the house and had begun writing small checks of $200-ish, but from an account that my husband didn't bother overseeing because it wasn't the one used for household expenses.

We had to close all his accounts, open new ones, and flag them for possible fraud.
 
Brookswood said:
Some banks let you add a warning person of your choice. If they see something odd they notify that person. “Mr. Grandad is trying to transfer $167,000 to Boris Rokivich in Belarus.”
Click to expand...
I would not do that. Encouraging anyone to believe that you're not quite all there upstairs is not a good idea. It's a quick way to get yourself committed, my opinion.
 
gruntlabor said:
There certainly are. Unfortunately, Squire made two electronic transfers of funds of his own free will. He had not been declared incompetent.
Click to expand...
Squire was defrauded by trickery (that was the category LAPD used when we went to the local station to report what happened to FIL). Many who are defrauded are merely gullible at that moment rather than overall incompetent.

It's a scammer's job to understand human nature and to know just what to say and how to say it so they can steal someone's life savings. The person on the other end of the phone or computer gets caught up in the story and not thinking things through.
 
GoneFishin said:
Winnipeg retiree who lost close to $650K in fraud scheme sues credit union and bank

Peter Squire’s lawsuit alleges seniors are more vulnerable to fraud

A Winnipeg man who says he lost nearly $650,000 in retirement funds to an alleged fraud scheme is suing a credit union and a bank in what the lawsuit calls a case of 'financial elder abuse'.

Peter Squire is suing Access Credit Union and the Royal Bank of Canada after he fell victim to a fraudster in November 2022.

Squire is a 68-year old retiree and a lawsuit he filed Thursday at the Court of King's Bench says senior citizens "are more vulnerable to fraud and financial abuse than other individuals."
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/winnipeg-retiree-fraud-credit-union-bank-1.7325174
Click to expand...
The credit union should have protected him and at a bare minimum, should have warned him of the dangers of what he was about to do. Credit unions are supposed to operate in the interest of their patrons, but now they're just interested in profits... Profit over people. That defines the current age.

This is supposed to be the definition of a credit union:
Credit unions are not-for-profit, member-owned organizations and regularly pool resources to provide better services for members. And, credit unions return profits back to members through: Products. Services.​

"Non-profits" are no longer "not for profit." They can make a profit, but it's limited how much they can make. And they can pay their CEOs 10s of millions of dollars a year. Their "services" seem to consist of trying to sell insurance policies to their members.

I say 'Make the credit union pay!'
 
There are significant numbers of gullible people, not just seniors, and such is not always due to lack of raw intelligence but rather how over years they educated and developed their mind, especially when growing up. We are what we do and experience.

We read ridiculous statements made daily, especially within Comment sections of news stories or how listening to those in media with manipulative agendas push extreme political issues that the gullible seem to consume in ways most of the rest of us immediately raise flags over. Incredible how stupid many people are with flawed thinking. In this era with an epidemic of substance abuses, there are even more people whose minds are significantly compromised due to their own acts.

There is and will never be a way to always protect such people from actions they themselves are responsible for. Nor should society be responsible for bailing them out. Victims serve public purpose as examples for others of what not to do and as motivation for politicians to take actions. At most, this victim might be helped by the charity of sympathetic others or financial institutions themselves. However, that does not include transferring responsibility to the public or businesses.

Last week BofA flagged one of my credit card payments for a magazine subscription that instantly put a full block on the card and sent me emails. Although I had tried before the renewal date, I had not been able to cancel the subscription because the magazine website cancel page had flawed link information and when I directly phoned, their customer service person garbled a cancelling phone number then blocked any further calls. Within hours I called BofA and set up a block for just that payment while unblocking all other activity.

There are many smaller financial organizations that don't have resources to offer a level of security of large banks. Most use carrots like higher interest rates and less service fees. When a wealthy person uses such banks, depending on specific circumstances, one is somewhat gambling potentially taking on more risk. In this case, the money oriented victim was apparently using bank financial advisors on his portfolio. Anytime one is involved with financial advisors, one ought be especially careful as that industry due to greater amounts of involved money are where scammers are drawn to.
 
StarSong said:
Squire was defrauded by trickery (that was the category LAPD used when we went to the local station to report what happened to FIL). Many who are defrauded are merely gullible at that moment rather than overall incompetent.

It's a scammer's job to understand human nature and to know just what to say and how to say it so they can steal someone's life savings. The person on the other end of the phone or computer gets caught up in the story and not thinking things through.
Click to expand...
He was defrauded by criminals who need to be looked up and locked up. Tragic that that won't happen.
 
gruntlabor said:
He was defrauded by criminals who need to be looked up and locked up. Tragic that that won't happen.
Click to expand...
They're almost all off-shore and unlikely to be found never mind prosecuted. The one that scammed my FIL was a Jamaican ring.

A NY postal inspector investigating that Jamaican group caught an envelope my FIL had sent to a known scammer address. My FIL's phone number was publicly listed so he called and left a message, which went to my office phone. Of course I checked this guy out ten ways from Sunday before talking to him.

The investigator was very illuminating, explaining the nature of the scams, how they first hook people in, slowly suck them dry, then get these now-desperate folks to do some of the ring's monetary collecting and forwarding work for them. Among the victims he'd talked to were doctors, lawyers and psychiatrists.

The unopened envelope they caught contained several hundred dollars in cash. It was returned to us and required my picture ID to get it released from the USPS.
 
David777 said:
There is and will never be a way to always protect such people from actions they themselves are responsible for. Nor should society be responsible for bailing them out. Victims serve public purpose as examples for others of what not to do and as motivation for politicians to take actions. At most, this victim might be helped by the charity of sympathetic others or financial institutions themselves. However, that does not include transferring responsibility to the public or businesses.
Click to expand...
Perhaps not, but financial institutions are plenty profitable and should be compelled to institute greater protections of the assets entrusted to them if they don't do so voluntarily. Scams and fraud add up to $10 BILLION in losses per year in the US alone, and that's just the amount reported to the FBI.
As Nationwide Fraud Losses Top $10 Billion in 2023, FTC Steps Up Efforts to Protect the Public

Banks are aware of these tricksters' methods and compelling stories, so in a way the financial institutions' lack of more robust protections makes them partly complicit. JMHO
 
Jeni said:
While I would agree banks or credit unions could have a speed bump sort of thing for large withdrawals or transfers .. How do they know it a legitimate transaction if someone transferred funds and was held up and that caused financial harm as the payment was delayed they would be blamed too.
Most scam things stopped at banks etc usually was done by an alert teller or employee rather then a bank CU policy here in states....

I know there are many targeting older or vulnerable clients but how is a bank suppose to determine that perhaps put some alert as every one turns a certain age? or maybe put a box to check when opening an account that wants them to watch A persons spending and make judgement for them?

I understand many people who want to blame others when taken in by a scam/ con artist but sometimes it just comes down to personal responsibility
Click to expand...
There is an e-program that screens transactions for suspect branches, aka, redirects, which all scams have.

All banks, credit unions, and credit card companies should be required to install it.

(@StarSong)
 
gruntlabor said:
He was defrauded by criminals who need to be looked up and locked up. Tragic that that won't happen.
Click to expand...
The problem is with the countries that don't prosecute scammers.

There's places in India and Africa where the police forces take bribes from scammers or get a percentage of the operation's annual take, which totals in the multi-millions or at least 6 figures. These cops warn scammers before a raid, and if there IS a "successful" raid, they hold the culprits for only a matter of hours, drop the charges for lack of a specific in-person complainant as required by law, and refuse to extradite them in any case.
 
HermitHogan said:
The credit union should have protected him and at a bare minimum, should have warned him of the dangers of what he was about to do. Credit unions are supposed to operate in the interest of their patrons, but now they're just interested in profits... Profit over people. That defines the current age.
Click to expand...
Credit Unions are not babysitters, intent on telling you you shouldn't buy that motorcycle because it's dangerous and you'll hardly ever use it. Most of the work is done automatically by computers, there are no humans watching the money move and going, "Oh my that's a lot of money going to that casino, maybe we should call his daughter and tell her her father has a gambling problem." That would be wrong even if it was possible to hire enough people to watch every transaction.

Yes Credit Unions, like banks, have to make some profit otherwise they wouldn't have anything to use when you want to borrow money and couldn't pay interest on your savings. They also need to pay their employees.

There are already lots of safety measures in place. The IRS wants to know about every cash transaction over 10,000, they try not to make loans to people who are already over extended, the credit cards alert if someone is buying something unusual for them.

Of course if you really hate banks you can keep you money at home in a coffee can.
 
Della said:
Credit Unions are not babysitters, intent on telling you you shouldn't buy that motorcycle because it's dangerous and you'll hardly ever use it. Most of the work is done automatically by computers, there are no humans watching the money move and going, "Oh my that's a lot of money going to that casino, maybe we should call his daughter and tell her her father has a gambling problem." That would be wrong even if it was possible to hire enough people to watch every transaction.

Yes Credit Unions, like banks, have to make some profit otherwise they wouldn't have anything to use when you want to borrow money and couldn't pay interest on your savings. They also need to pay their employees.

There are already lots of safety measures in place. The IRS wants to know about every cash transaction over 10,000, they try not to make loans to people who are already over extended, the credit cards alert if someone is buying something unusual for them.

Of course if you really hate banks you can keep you money at home in a coffee can.
Click to expand...
We're not talking about motorcycles and casinos, we're talking about extortionists. And no one's asking financial institutions to babysit their customers, and we all know they conduct business electronically. That's why this makes perfect sense:

"There is an e-program that screens transactions for suspect branches, aka, redirects, which all scams have.
All banks, credit unions, and credit card companies should be required to install it."

That software is probably not cheap, but maybe a few successful law suits will encourage these companies to protect their customers with that extra security.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top