It's not "his" money. The money belongs to someone else with the same name, and the same SSN, which is rather suspicious, but in general a company can't go around giving personal information about one client to another client even when those clients have the same name (and the same SSN). In some countries they would be breaking the law if they did that.
If someone uses "my" name (which is not actually "owned" by me; there is no law to prevent other people from using that name) to commit fraud then that is a matter for the people being defrauded and for the police. I can't expect to magically acquire police powers in order to investigate it myself.
I have the same mental reaction every time I read about someone trying to investigate a so-called "identity theft" in which their name was used. The whole concept of "identity theft" is extremely dodgy. From a practical point of view, I don't know what to advise.
Yeah we should really stop using the term identity theft as it's not correct. Someone isn't stealing my identity. It's bank fraud where the bank failed to validate someone's identity good enough and try make it out to be your fault by saying identity theft.
I have heard it before, probably a few times. But that said I have watched Mitchell and Webb and forgot it was on there too. Thanks for the reminder and link!
Attempts to combat identity theft / money laundering seem to be aimed specifically at making it easier for someone to get hold of someone elses' personal details.
I'm currently in the process of trying to buy a house. In order to prevent money laundering my lawyer must verify original ID documents and take copies of these. The bank also needed similar. Those I can kind of understand, if you can't trust the lawyer or the bank who can you trust right?
But it doesn't end there. The estate agent dealing with the sale of the house also needed copies. That is 3 copies of our personal details (passport and bank statements) floating around on how many different computer systems? How safe are the access controls on those systems? How many people require access to those systems as part of their day to day work? More than I'd like.
I don't see your issue. The lawyers and banks are/should be trustable. A dodgy lawyer/bank soon loses their license.
Your lawyer knows you because he met you and can see the details you provided do match you because of the photo and signature. The bank the same.
So if someone else had your details it shouldn't matter. If they go to a lawyer or bank to try and get them to verify the documents, the lawyer or bank should be doing due diligence to verify the documents. The lawyer should verify the passport is real, not forged, and the photo and signature matches the person, and done face to face. Same with the bank.
So it really shouldn't matter how many copies of your personal details are out there.
The issue is that when a bank doesn't do it's due diligence and barely verifies the documents (or doesn't verify at all). They didn't check the person opening the account is the same one as the personal details provided. That is the bank's mistake not yours. But the banks have to gall to say it's identity theft. As if it was your fault they didn't do their due diligence.
It's the pressure from marketing/corporate to increase sales/accounts. Often the more accounts opened mean more bonuses. So the incentive is to not reject. They don't get bonuses for doing due diligence and rejecting fake applications. They put that work on you once someone has frauded them.
Really any bank that says you've been identity theft it's their fault they didn't have the right due diligence in place.
Sorry, I didn't see this comment until now. I agree that the bank and the lawyers as a whole are trustworthy. That is not the same as each individual within those banks and lawyers office being trustworthy. And the one I particularly dislike is the real estate agent who I didn't even get to chose as they are an agent for the seller.
Copies of these verification documents are hugely valuable to someone trying to carry out "identity theft". They could for example forge an 'originals seen' stamp from a lawyer or bank teller. At that point they are as good as an original as far as banks are concerned.
This is 100% correct. My wife got a notification from the IRS that someone else has been using her identity. Therefore, get this, IRS had issued both of them two separate secure PIN numbers which they have to use to file their taxes. IRS is refusing to deal with the fact that one of the "tax payers" is committing both identify theft and tax fraud. It is pretty funny, actually. This has been going on for 8 years by now.
That's a good argument, but in this case they did send him a 1099.
So it seems like either the options are they sent him a 1099 by mistake, or they didn't, and they should therefore be able to say where the money was sent or help him access the account.
Comments
It's not "his" money. The money belongs to someone else with the same name, and the same SSN, which is rather suspicious, but in general a company can't go around giving personal information about one client to another client even when those clients have the same name (and the same SSN). In some countries they would be breaking the law if they did that.
If someone uses "my" name (which is not actually "owned" by me; there is no law to prevent other people from using that name) to commit fraud then that is a matter for the people being defrauded and for the police. I can't expect to magically acquire police powers in order to investigate it myself.
I have the same mental reaction every time I read about someone trying to investigate a so-called "identity theft" in which their name was used. The whole concept of "identity theft" is extremely dodgy. From a practical point of view, I don't know what to advise.
Yeah we should really stop using the term identity theft as it's not correct. Someone isn't stealing my identity. It's bank fraud where the bank failed to validate someone's identity good enough and try make it out to be your fault by saying identity theft.
Are you referencing Mitchell and Webb? Because you're practically quoting one of my favorite sketches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOQBpHN_kS0
I have heard it before, probably a few times. But that said I have watched Mitchell and Webb and forgot it was on there too. Thanks for the reminder and link!
Attempts to combat identity theft / money laundering seem to be aimed specifically at making it easier for someone to get hold of someone elses' personal details.
I'm currently in the process of trying to buy a house. In order to prevent money laundering my lawyer must verify original ID documents and take copies of these. The bank also needed similar. Those I can kind of understand, if you can't trust the lawyer or the bank who can you trust right?
But it doesn't end there. The estate agent dealing with the sale of the house also needed copies. That is 3 copies of our personal details (passport and bank statements) floating around on how many different computer systems? How safe are the access controls on those systems? How many people require access to those systems as part of their day to day work? More than I'd like.
I don't see your issue. The lawyers and banks are/should be trustable. A dodgy lawyer/bank soon loses their license.
Your lawyer knows you because he met you and can see the details you provided do match you because of the photo and signature. The bank the same.
So if someone else had your details it shouldn't matter. If they go to a lawyer or bank to try and get them to verify the documents, the lawyer or bank should be doing due diligence to verify the documents. The lawyer should verify the passport is real, not forged, and the photo and signature matches the person, and done face to face. Same with the bank.
So it really shouldn't matter how many copies of your personal details are out there.
The issue is that when a bank doesn't do it's due diligence and barely verifies the documents (or doesn't verify at all). They didn't check the person opening the account is the same one as the personal details provided. That is the bank's mistake not yours. But the banks have to gall to say it's identity theft. As if it was your fault they didn't do their due diligence.
It's the pressure from marketing/corporate to increase sales/accounts. Often the more accounts opened mean more bonuses. So the incentive is to not reject. They don't get bonuses for doing due diligence and rejecting fake applications. They put that work on you once someone has frauded them.
Really any bank that says you've been identity theft it's their fault they didn't have the right due diligence in place.
Sorry, I didn't see this comment until now. I agree that the bank and the lawyers as a whole are trustworthy. That is not the same as each individual within those banks and lawyers office being trustworthy. And the one I particularly dislike is the real estate agent who I didn't even get to chose as they are an agent for the seller.
Copies of these verification documents are hugely valuable to someone trying to carry out "identity theft". They could for example forge an 'originals seen' stamp from a lawyer or bank teller. At that point they are as good as an original as far as banks are concerned.
This is 100% correct. My wife got a notification from the IRS that someone else has been using her identity. Therefore, get this, IRS had issued both of them two separate secure PIN numbers which they have to use to file their taxes. IRS is refusing to deal with the fact that one of the "tax payers" is committing both identify theft and tax fraud. It is pretty funny, actually. This has been going on for 8 years by now.
I understand now, I made the mistake of thinking he had control of the Amazon account.
That's a good argument, but in this case they did send him a 1099.
So it seems like either the options are they sent him a 1099 by mistake, or they didn't, and they should therefore be able to say where the money was sent or help him access the account.