WaMu Gave Grandma's Money to Crooks

Grandma Vindicated! Washington Mutual Dead!

2008-09-25T19:24:00.000-07:00

Well, not really. I'm just glad the headline's not reversed.

It does give us both a certain amount of satisfaction to see Washington Mutual seized, frisked, and disgraced. I still have an account with a couple thousand dollars in it with them that I use for some monthly electronic payments but it doesn't sound like that's in any jeopardy.

Good riddance. This blog is over.

New York Times story

Wachovia: Worse Than Wamu

2008-02-06T18:52:00.000-08:00

Charles Duhigg, author of last year's New York Times article on telemarketing scams, writes today about Wachovia's -- I want to say "egregious", but "gutter scum" is probably more accurate -- support of fraudulent telemarketers like the type I've written about here. From the article:

The lawsuit alleges that Wachovia accepted fraudulent, unsigned checks that withdrew funds from the accounts of victims, often elderly. Wachovia forwarded those checks to other banks that were unaware of the frauds, which in turn sent money to the swindlers.

Stay classy, Wachovia.

Full article: Papers Show Wachovia Knew of Thefts

Karma's a Bitch

2007-11-20T19:56:00.000-08:00

Wamu's stock price since the beginning of this blog (click for larger view):

That's what you get when you help rip off grandmas. Well, that, and give a home loan to every lying schmuck who walks through the door.

New York Times Article on Telemarketer Scammers

2007-05-21T16:01:00.000-07:00

Never heard back from Charles Duhigg but saw that his article appeared today:

Bilking the Elderly, With a Corporate Assist

I'd say that I was happy to see it, but it is anything but happy reading. A great article and I was interested to see that it is the number 2 most popular article on the Times' site today.

The case of Richard Guthrie is just the kind of case I imagined when my grandmother was scammed. I'm very sorry to hear what happened to him and what I can imagine are thousands and thousands like him. I can only express relief that my grandmother didn't end up this far in.

I noticed that the article also reinforces a central thesis of this blog -- American banks and their damned unsigned checks are a big part of the problem:

State regulators have tried to protect victims like Mr. Guthrie. In 2005, attorneys general of 35 states urged the Federal Reserve to end the unsigned check system.

“Such drafts should be eliminated in favor of electronic funds transfers that can serve the same payment function” but are less susceptible to manipulation, they wrote.

But the Federal Reserve disagreed. It changed its rules to place greater responsibility on banks that first accept unsigned checks, but has permitted their continued use.

Calling All (Former) Employees of ICT, Netchex, Payment Processing Center, Client Care Relations, Etc.

2007-04-23T08:36:00.000-07:00

Charles Duhigg of the New York Times would like to speak to you.

Specifically, he would like to speak to Fred of Integrated Check Technologies, who left a comment here, or anyone involved with ICT (or with companies named Netchex or Payment Processing Center), or who has worked with Thomas Cimicato.

You may reach Charles through the New York Times website or at the number he left here. If you need his email address, email me and I'll be happy to provide it.

Update

2007-04-18T10:57:00.000-07:00

Haven't touched this blog in a while, but got an interesting comment today (if legit, which I think it is.) The comment by Fred is also worth a look. I concede Fred's point that Wamu was just following the rules. But my larger point is : if these are the rules, then they should be changed. Especially in this age of easy identity theft.

As far as my grandma's case:

The bad news is : she never recovered her money and as far as I know. No one was ever brought to justice. Wamu never got back to me. And the banking industry has not changed their practices, meaning some unknown number of people are still getting ripped off by these creeps.

The good news : Grandma hasn't been ripped off since this happened. And I've moved most my money out of my Wamu account into a credit union. (And the New York Times may now be looking into this.)

Check Processor Really Put Out of Business?

2006-06-07T09:24:00.000-07:00

The state investigator I've been corresponding with every now and then wrote me today to note that the story I was fed by CCR (see last post) may really be true. She included the following link:

Petro Slams Columbus Firm For Helping Telemarketing Fraud

My question to her: why would they stop the company that was processing the refunds?

Well, in fact, as the Ohio AG's Office press release indicates, this was the company that was taking in the money. I'm sure they were taking in a lot more money than they were giving back -- if they were giving back any at all.

The release notes:

The company often made paper-check withdrawals of hundreds of dollars at a time without consumers authorizing or even knowing about them, an illegal practice known as “slamming,” Petro said. He added that ICT withdrawals that may have been authorized by consumers were nevertheless illegal if they were based on deceptive telemarketing sales pitches by its client firms.

This would explain why my grandma's checks were being cashed in Cleveland. (Ohio is quite the hotbed of corruption.)

Good news -- but then again, I'm sure the crooks behind this are already up and running under a different name. If not, someone's sure to have jumped in their place.

Ultimately, I'm curious to see what kind of sentence, if any, these guys get (if convicted.)

I'm adding them to the watch file:

Thomas Cimicato
Integrated Check Technologies (ITP) of Columbus
Check Free Recovery, Inc. of Columbus
Collect-A-Check of Columbus
Ohio Attorney General, Jim Petro

update on ITP refund

2006-06-02T09:31:00.000-07:00

Called CCR back today for the first time in weeks just to check in on the status of my grandma's refund. I was informed that the company that processes the refund for ITP (the company that ripped off my grandma) is no longer in business. ITP is still in business. CCR is still in business. But the processing -- whose name she didn't even know -- was out of business, so the refund can't be processed.

She told me I should have my grandma's bank file an affidavit. When I asked her with whom the bank should file the affidavit, her attitude, which wasn't great to start, soured even further. When I pressed her to explain how this would help, she finally hung up.

If you need to contact CCR, their number is 866-898-7489.

I contacted Wamu to inquire about filing an affidavit, but Andrew Samuel was once more unavailable to take my call. I left him a voicemail asking him to call me back today.

Updates

2006-05-15T17:24:00.000-07:00

I haven't updated in a while, mainly because there hasn't been much good news. To wit:

» no refunds for Grandma yet despite the protestations of CCR and Andrew Samuel

» no response from Andrew Samuel to my follow-up email

» no help from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (which oversees banks) or the Office of Thrift Supervision (which oversees Washington Mutual)

I haven't given up, but unfortunately I've been too busy lately to pursue this with any vigor.

A couple other notes:

In response to my post of the email I sent Andrew Samuel at Washington Mutual, someone commented:

Give Andrew a chance to rectify the problem. I recently had an issue with WAMU and was likewise referred to Andrew Samuel. It took a while but he came through, and during the entire process was communicative, polite and resourceful. In fact, he took an advocacy stance on my behalf when dealing with the department in question. He truly is one of WAMU's most outstanding staff members and I'm quite happy that I was referred to him.

He's had plenty of chances. I suspect this is a Wamu troll -- check out complaints on ripoffreport.com and there will usually be someone from Wamu commenting in their defense.

I was reading just now an interesting article in the OC Register on charity scams. Regarding the scam artist's psychology, it notes:

University of Tennessee sociologist Neal Shover has studied fraudulent telemarketers for years. He thinks they're interested in one thing: "life as party."

Shover and Glenn S. Coffey of the University of Northern Florida interviewed 45 telemarketers convicted of federal crimes.

They found people who earned $100,000 to $250,000 a year while working just 20 to 30 hours a week. That left plenty of time for "life as party."

"One subject said that they 'would go out to the casinos and blow two, three, four, five thousand dollars a night,'" Shover and Coffey wrote. "Asked how he spent the money he made in telemarketing, one subject replied, 'houses, girls, just going out to nightclubs and lots of blow [cocaine]... lots and lots of blow, enormous amounts.'"

Work itself could be life as party. On the job, many solicitors dressed casually, used drugs and alcohol and got a thrill as potent as any drug from a successful call.

Glad to know my grandma, with the support of Washington Mutual, could help.

another insider's account of Client Care Relations

2006-05-03T08:23:00.000-07:00

If you're wondering where all the manufacturing jobs in America are going or have gone, read on.

The part about not being able to do business in Ohio is interesting. I guess Ohio has already gone after this company.

As with other posts, this is published anonymously with the permission of the person who emailed me:

I stumbled onto your site quite by accident, but I was not suprised to see Quebec listed as the location for part of this telemarketing scam. I live in Montreal, Quebec and I would have to say that 70% of jobs for non-professionals are telemarketing ones, (Google montreal job boards or newspaper classifieds and you will see what I mean - it is often just called 'sales'). You say it is a dying business - well no one informed Quebec, even though I wish they would.

I recently worked for one of these outfits for two weeks before I was making myself sick being involved. I have absolutely no money and no job either now, but I would rather live in a cardboard box on a street corner than to scam innocent and/or desperate people. I worked on a 'campaign' for Grant Proposals. The company goes out of their way to make it look government affiliated. Upstairs they have another campaign regarding prescription meds for seniors in the USA.

I think what is going on is disgusting.

Clients were having the same problems getting help as you mention. In 8 days I got 8 calls from clients trying to get refunded but having no success in reaching anyone at the 'customer service'.

The other red flag is the Las Vegas, Nevada bit. The campaign I worked claimed the company was out of there. They also claimed to be with the BBB, but all they had done was submit their address. What I later found out was that they had changed the company name and phone numbers, (ostensibly due to problems from scamming with the other names and numbers)

I wish I could sit in a corner there and tell the people who call these places, (i was on an inbound campaign), NOT to believe, trust or give any info to these people. I did find a way to tell many of them they could get better info on gov't grants and help from their local library and librarian. I REALLY wish you luck stopping these scumbags. I think what is going on is dispicable.

If there is any way I could help you, being here in Quebec, I would be happy to. Most of the people who call for these things were in need of Oprah's angel network, not being scammed.

The Company name for the campaign I worked was Liberty First Financial, (but this was a 'new' name for an 'old' scam) I was paid by check from a payroll company called Ceridian, (Ceridian is a legit payroll co. - I recieved my pay from proper businesses who used their services in the past), but the company that hired them to do payroll is just another number company easy to open and close - the current 'number' is 62448837 Canada Inc., 1181 Sainte-Catherine, Montreal, QC H3B 1K4. It is a grey little inconspicuous door behind a guy selling perfume in downtown Montreal. No sign, even on the inside office door upstairs - but, they're there. I would not be at all suprised to find out that this co. is linked to what has happened to your grandma. I think they call themselves y2k or something like that....

**so i went to las vegas nevada bbb and look-y here what I found:

Liberty First Financial, otherwise known as Priority First Financial
Priority First Financial
(Liberty First Financial)
1117 Desert Ln. #1529
Las Vegas, NV 89102
http://search.bbb.org/

n.b. they are NOT a bbb member (no logo to the left of their name) coincidence? I think not!

**n.b. we were not allowed to do business with OHIO and two other states, (sorry can't remember other two, but I am trying to get in touch with a friend who is still there while he looks for something else - he too is feeling morally guilty for what he is involved in, but does not have the luxury of choosing a cardboard box as living arrangements! If I can get the info I will forward it)

Sincerely,
<withheld>

p.s. please find below links I found of others scammed by Liberty First Financial (postcards sent out as Liberty First Financial, First Liberty Financial and Priority First Financial)

http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff186151.htm
http://badbusinessbureau.com/reports/ripoff184283.htm

a couple of these run the same script as what I was given - probably the 'old' name....

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/scam_alerts/grant.html

n.b. by the time i joined they were working an INBOUND campaign (meaning folks called a number on a piece of junk mail). We were told to answer questions of legitimacy by pointing out we had NOT called them, rather they had called us, (but, d'uh, we sent out the postcards) and that we were with the BBB Las Vegas....

I referred the person who wrote me to some state investigators.

update on grandma's refund

2006-05-01T09:38:00.000-07:00

Grandma has yet to receive any refund. I have not received a response from Washington Mutual to my last email. Client Care Relations, as far as I know, is still successfully doing business. I will have to call them again when I have some time.

Email to Andrew Samuel, Quality Service Manager at Washington Mutual

2006-04-22T10:57:00.000-07:00

Andrew Samuel wrote me the letter in response to my letter to Faye L. Chapman, executive legal counsel at Washington Mutual. In his letter, he invited me to call him if I had any questions.

Last week, I phoned his office. His secretary, however, informed me that he was on the phone with another customer. She asked for my phone number, but I really didn't want him calling me back on my cell phone while I'm grocery shopping or something, so I asked his email address. She gave it to me. I won't post it here, because that would seem malicious. But if you would like to email Mr. Samuel, please feel free to email me.

Here is the email I sent him. It has been over a week and I have not received a response.

Dear Andrew,

I recently wrote Faye Chapman regarding an incident of fraud against my grandma's Washington Mutual checking account (Forgery Case #200602xxxxx.) You were kind enough to write my grandma in answer to my letter and invite her to contact you with any further questions. My grandma shared the letter with me and I tried to phone you today with some further questions we have. However, you were unavailable and, at my request, I was provided your email address. I'm writing on behalf of my grandma with some follow-up questions.

You note in the letter that you can only communicate regarding particulars of her account with her individually. None of my questions involve private details related to her account, so I hope you will find no obstacle to responding to these questions.

1. Washington Mutual paid funds out of my grandmother's checking account because a fraudulent telemarketing company ("the merchant") printed up a check with her account information on it. She never signed or saw the check. Although you state in your letter that she authorized the transaction, she did not authorize it according to the terms presented to her by the merchant in portions of the transaction not recorded, which disguised the fact that a demand draft would be drawn up and money taken from her account.

The company itself, I have learned, is being investigated by the state of Wisconsin and Canadian authorities. In my letter, I asked why Wamu would ever cash such a check? You wrote, "Washington Mutual Bank honored the items because they are negotiable instruments according to the Uniform Commercial Code 3104."

My question: is Wamu legally obligated to honor such items? In cases where the authorization is questionable and the instrument originates from a company with a public record of questionable practices, can a bank refuse to honor such an instrument?

2. I contacted Bank of America and asked one of their agents if they cash these kind of checks. He said that they do, but with certain known discreditable merchants, they immediately credit back the customer's account without any request even being necessary from the account holder. Another person whose mother-in-law was victimized in a scheme similar to the one that target my grandmother informed me that Wachovia, where his mother-in-law's account is held, immediately refunded the $498 taken from her account when they brought it to their attention.

In your letter, you write, "The Forgery Department is very familiar with the different telemarketing companies, and knows which ones provide a recording of the verbal authorization." Cursory research on my part revealed that the merchant in question in my grandma's case has a public history of senior fraud. See, for instance:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534338/

Given these facts, why wouldn't Washington Mutual question the validity of the authorization or follow a policy like Bank of America or Wachovia to protect your account holders?

3. You note in your letter that my grandma should be receiving two refunds for checks cashed against her account. She has not seen either of these refunds and when I have talked with the customer support company, Client Care Relations, I get a different answer every time.

Can you give me the name and phone number of the contact with whom you spoke at Client Care Relations so that I can obtain definitive information on the status of her refunds? My suspicion is that the puported refunds are merely a diversion to get my grandma and Washington Mutual to go away.

4. In your letter, you state that my grandmother authorized one of the fraudulent merchants to write a check against her account by answering "yes" when she was asked "is Orange City, CA where the account is held?" Is getting an account holder to verbally confirm the location of their local Wamu branch sufficient authorization for anyone to write a check against your customer's account?

5. On the advice of someone with whom I discussed this matter, my grandmother and I would like if possible to initiate an R-10 chargeback against each of the unauthorized demand drafts presented against my grandma's account. Can we do this? If so, how can we do so?

6. If a chargeback is not possible, I'd like to again request Washington Mutual reimburse my grandmother for the unauthorized demand drafts cashed against her account. In making this request, I acknowledge the reason why Washington Mutual refused her initial fraud claim. In making this second appeal, I ask you to reimburse her not because the payment Washington Mutual was unauthorized but as an act of good faith and positive customer relations consistent with the practices of Bank of America and Wachovia and, I hope, Washington Mutual itself.

Thank you again for your time and attention.

Sincerely,
wamuonfraud

back and forth with the California Department of Consumer Affairs

2006-04-11T08:56:00.000-07:00

A second response to the follow up email I sent the the department with short and long versions of my complaints pasted in:

Thank you for providing your complaint information. As bank complaints fall outside of the DCA's regulatory authority, we would like to offer alternative options and information for possible resolution to your complaint.

Upon reviewing your complaint, it appears you have taken the necessary steps to resolve your dispute by speaking to the bank's first line representatives and management. If you are still unable to receive satisfaction from the bank, we recommend you contact the Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS), Consumer Affairs Office. For information on how to file a complaint with the OTS, you may use the following link to the OTS Web site for its complaint filing and handling process: http://www.ots.treas.gov/docs/4/48780.html For your convenience, we have also provided the contact information for the OTS West Region Consumer Affairs Office below:

Office of Thrift Supervision

West Region, Consumer Affairs
P.O. Box 7165
San Francisco, CA 94120
(650) 746-7098
(650) 746-7097 (Spanish)
(650) 746-7001 (Fax)

You may also contact the OTS at its main office at:

Office of the Thrift Supervision
Consumer Affairs, Customer Relations
1700 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20552
Telephone: (202) 906-6000
Toll free: (800) 842-6929
Web site: http://www.ots.treas.gov

Additionally, we suggest you file a complaint with the California Department of Justice, Office of the Attorney General (AG) to report the businesses that withdrew the funds from your grandmother's account. The AG's office establishes and operates projects and programs to protect consumers from fraudulent, unfair, and illegal activities that victimize consumers. For more information and assistance regarding this matter, please contact the AG directly at the following:

California Department of Justice,
Office of the Attorney General
PO Box 944255
Sacramento, CA 94244-2550
Toll free: (800) 952-5225 (in California)
Telephone: (916) 322-3360
Web site: http://www.caag.state.ca.us

Also, you may wish to contact the Better Business Bureau (BBB) for assistance. BBB's are nonprofit organizations that promote an ethical marketplace by encouraging honest business advertising and selling practices. They offer a variety of consumer services including information about a business, particularly whether or not there are unanswered or unsettled complaints. For more information, please visit the BBB Web site at http://www.bbb.org.

Further, we suggest that you contact the DCA's Office of Privacy Protection (OPP) for information regarding fraudulent charges to your grandmother's bank account. The OPP serves as a statewide resource for consumer information and source of assistance on identity theft, unsolicited telemarketing calls, unsolicited junk mail and other privacy issues. For your convenience, we have provided the contact information for the OPP below:

Office of Privacy Protection
1625 N Market Blvd., Suite N-324
Toll free: (866) 785-9663
Telephone: (916) 574-8180
Email: privacy@dca.ca.gov
Web site: http://www.privacy.ca.gov

We regret we are unable to assist you further and hope you find the above information helpful. Again, thank you for contacting the DCA.

C74

My response:

Dear C74,

I apologize in advance if I come off disagreeably in this email but your response irritates me for a number of reasons:

1. I get no sense from the website you link to that these agencies will be of any help to me. If you know one that will -- or better yet, an actual person that can help me, please send me that info. Some of these site send me in circles back to your site!

2. You don't answer -- or even acknowledge -- the specific question I ask. As a consumer affairs agency, can you direct me to someone specifically who could?

3. You really can't read my web page? Really? Are you too busy to open up a browser? Has your sysadmin taken away your internet access? Some anachronistic 19th century law that makes it illegal for state employees? I put the blog up so I could make the info readily available without having to reinvent the wheel every time I contact somebody new.. It certainly doesn't reflect all that impressively on the greatest, most advanced state in this nation. Anyway, it's probably best at this point that you not visit the website.

4. I'm a big supporter of government oversight of business, but if this is characteristic of the kind of support you offer, why do we even fund the allocation? Or is it that the governor has already starved your agency to the point that you can't afford an operating browser? If you can't help me and don't know of an agency or institution that can, I'd prefer you just say that, simply and straightforwardly. A modified form letter with a bunch of links in it doesn't really help me. I've wasted enough time on this matter that I don't need to waste any further in a bureaucratic wild goose chase.

Anyway, you get the picture. I don't mean to insult you personally, but it would be nice to get some sense that you aren't just some chatbot firing off these messages to me.

But to the substance of my original complaint. I guess my question is: is it in the state's interest to have Washington Mutual or any bank cashing checks of this nature? Are the legally obligated to do so?

If you can offer some real help, please do so. If not, feel free to state that plainly, too. I wasn't really expecting all that much to begin with.

Sincerely,
Tom

Actually, I edited out the more offensive parts of points 3 and 4. Suffice to say, about as impressed with the State of California right now as I am with Washington Mutual.

I did email the Office of Privacy Protection. Not sure I want to wait on hold with the Attorney General's office.

The Wamu Blames Grandma Map

2006-04-07T16:43:00.000-07:00

Just heard about platial.com on the radio and thought I'd give it a try.

Here's my first map:

Map of the International Conspiracy to Defaud My Grandma

Added 4 places so far. Kinda fun.

Why I Don't Bother with State Agencies

2006-04-05T20:53:00.000-07:00

On the recommendation of the other state's investigator, I filed a complaint with the California Department of Consumer Affairs:

I was referred to this site by an investigator with the state of Wisconsin. Rather than repeat my tale here, I will refer you to the blog I've been keeping that provides both short summaries and details:

http://wamublamesgrandma.blogspot.com/

Please contact me with questions or advice.

Here's the summary of my complaint:

Business/Professional Name: Washington Mutual
License Number:
Address (Number and Street): Various
City, State Zip: [Some City], CA 92XXX
Telephone Number: () -
Business / Professional E-mail Address:
Person whom you dealt with:
Online Tracking Number: CU-06-0404145029,
Complaint Description: I was referred to this site by an investigator
with the state of Wisconsin. Rather than repeat my tale here, I will
refer you to the blog I've been keeping that provides both short
summaries and details: http://wamublamesgrandma.blogspot.com/ Please
contact me with questions or advice. Thanks!
Purchase/Incident Date: //
Resolution Wanted: Refund my grandmother's checks
List of Supporting Documents: See blog address above:
http://wamublamesgrandma.blogspot.com/2006/03/check-1.html
Have I filed this complaint before: Yes
Agency Information See blog -- no help yet
Name: Tom Withheld
Address (Number and Street): 1200 Withheld Blvd.
City, State Zip: [Some City], CA 92XXX
Daytime Telephone Number: () -
E-mail Address: wamuonfraud@gmail.com

I was going to list Identity Theft Prevention, but then they're not in California and may not actually exist.

This is the response I received:

Thank you for contacting the State of California, Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). We are unable to link to your blog; however, if you are experiencing problems with a bank, we recommend you contact the following agencies for possible assistance:

The Department of Financial Institutions (DFI) regulates and licenses state banks, state savings and loans, trust companies, state offices of foreign banks, issuers of travelers checks and payment instruments (money orders), transmitters of money abroad, state credit unions, and industrial loan (thrift and loan) companies. For further information, please contact the DFI directly at the following:

California Department of Financial Institutions
801 K Street, Suite 1009
Sacramento, CA 95814
Telephone: (916) 322-5966
Web site: http://www.dfi.ca.gov

Banks that contain the word "National" or the initials "N.A.", are national banks and regulated by the (federal) Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. You may contact this office directly at the following:

Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
50 Fremont Street, Suite 3900
San Francisco, CA 94105-2292
Telephone: (415) 545-5900 (general information)
Toll free: (800) 613-6743
Fax: (713) 336-4301
Web site: http://www.occ.treas.gov

Again, thank you for contacting the DCA. We are pleased to provide you with this information.

C74

A quick scan of the directions for filing a complaint on the website of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency or the Office of Thrift Supervision indicates what a futile task that is. (They don't even offer an online form or email option.)

Thanks, C74. Can you patch me back through to R2D2 now?

Message from State Investigator

2006-04-04T08:03:00.000-07:00

I received the following response from the state investigator who contacted me yesterday:

Since I work for the Bureau of Consumer Protection in [my state], I only deal with [my state's] consumers.

However, most states do have a similar Department/Bureau within their state government. Sometimes it is under the Attorney General or the Department of Justice, depending on how the state government is set up.

If you can, please post on your site for any consumers that believe they were ripped off in a similar manner, and these groups take on a lot of different names, to file a complaint with their state department. If they don't know what the department is in their state, have them file one with their state representative. They can also file an Identity Theft complaint, I believe they can do this through their bank.

When they file the complaint, it is best for them to (in detail) describe what happened, from the telephone call (including the telephone number that showed up on their caller ID), to the withdrawal from their bank account. Even if their bank has reimbursed the money lost, they should still file. It is also helpful if the consumer can obtain a copy of the check, both front and back. They can, if they choose to, black out their account information, however, leave the back unmarked, since that will provide information for the investigators.

Also, please let these people know that even if they are on the Federal or state No Call list, these people are still getting through to them.

And, urge people not to ever give out personal information (date of birth, address, social security, bank account) over the telephone, especially on calls that they had not initiated.

Ok: never give out personal information (date of birth, address, social security, bank account) over the telephone, especially on calls that you have not initiated.

I'm glad to know at least one northern midwest state famous for its dairy products is taking forward action on this matter.

I admit my grandmother and I didn't file a complaint with any California state agencies because (1) we didn't know which one to contact and (2) we'd have no confidence it would make any difference. This message offers some encouragement and I will try to track down the appropriate state agency when I have time.

If you know a state or local agency that victims of this type of fraud can contact, please feel free to add the information in the comments to this post. I see this blog is becoming a clearinghouse/gathering point for people searching this issue and I hope it will continue.

Contacted by a State Fraud Investigator

2006-04-03T19:03:00.000-07:00

I'm not absolutely positive it's legitimate, but her email address came from a legitimate state website. If true, a gratifying development (though, alas, I don't think her dragnet extends to Washington Mutual.)

She inquired about getting in touch with some people who have emailed me. I told her they had done so anonymously with requests I protect their anonymity, so I will respect their wishes and protect their anonymity (as I will hers.) I have forwarded her message, however.

I have volunteered to post some information here for her if it will assist her investigation. In the meantime, if you have a message you would like to forward to her concerning CCR, its clients, telemarketer fraud, or your bank, feel free to send it to me through the email link above and I will pass it along.

And hopefully, we'll soon see a New York Times headline:

Blog Helps Bring Down International Fraud Ring

how Client Care Relations works from the inside

2006-03-30T08:58:00.000-08:00

I received this email yesterday from someone identifying himself or herself as an ex-CCR Employee. The portrait of Client Care Relations the anonymous emailer provides more or less accords with the one I've put together in working with them. What particularly galls me is the way Washington Mutual appears from its letter to cooperate with outfits like this.

In his letter, Andrew Samuel of Washington Mutual states, "The Forgery Department is very familiar with the different telemarketing companies, and knows which ones provide a recording of the verbal authorization." As the ex-CCR employee here notes, "This is not to say that people were not mislead off of the recordings... These recordings are played to the bank representatives if they call to inquire. They hear the customer’s authorization and some will not reverse transaction even if it is within 60 days.":

I saw your blog on Client Care Relations. Regrettably, I was once employed there.

Client Care Relations claimes to provide customer service for a variety of other telemarketing firms. From what I remember they were in the business of processing customer complaints and returns for 5 or 6 different companies at a given time. Usually credit card rehabilitation, prescription drugs, and ironically anti telemarketing services.

I can confirm all sales calls were recorded and the recordings were verified by Client Care Relations quality control before any payments were processed. The sales on the recording were authentic, if a client was mislead on tape, the sale was cancelled and never processed. This is not to say that people were not mislead off of the recordings. The telemarketing industry is a dying breed, but there are still smooth sales people and unsuspecting gullible folks.

As far as things went in the office.. A client would usually call complaining either:

1- That they never ordered this (Or once the received it they were so furious or embarrassed to see what they were duped into)
2- That they never got it (Shipping was delayed all the time)
3- Sometimes people were double or triple charged.. We advised them it was a processing error..These were the priority refunds, but still took about 10 business days or more.

Customers had to return the merchandise in order to obtain a refund. It would usually take over 60 days for the client to call, then receive the merchandise and return it to a NY post office box, Someone would then have to drive to that po box and bring the merchandise back and then it had to be entered into the system. Depending on the severity of clients calls or threats.. Refunds were submitted accordingly.

Most clients had their refunds delayed until they made huge stinks with the BBB or Attorney General or the police. Some people who were promised refunds were delayed until the company disconnected the phone line and changed it to a new number. Eventually it was apparent that some people would not be refunded and we were advised to tell clients that Client care relations service contract for that particular telemarketing company had expired and to try to file chargeback’s R-10’s with their bank.

Unfortunately the time it takes to get to that point has usually exceeded 60 days and the customers can no longer file chargeback’s with their bank. In most cases the clients have agreed on tape to purchase the item on a given date for a given price. Some recordings even told customers that the product or service was not refundable. These recordings are played to the bank representatives if they call to inquire. They hear the customer’s authorization and some will not reverse transaction even if it is within 60 days.

I know that some people were indeed refunded but they left a lot of people hanging.. They would never provide the contact information for the actual telemarketing offices which leads me to believe the two are probably intertwined.

A lot of customers would just give up after getting the run around. As a result, people learn the expensive lesson not to buy ANYTHING over the phone.

They get away with it through legal technicalities and it is not right.

In an attempt to absolve myself of the some of the guilt I carry from having been employed there; I would like to offer you their actual business information in the hopes I can maybe help some people get their money back.

Strategic Commercial Solutions
83, Avenue Ashgrove,
Pointe-Claire, QC H9R 3N5
Tel. : 514-695-5311

Both Suite 201 and 202 if I remember correctly.

Please email me if you have anymore questions.

Understandably, I would like to remain anonymous.

Take care.

Google Maps: Strategic Commercial Solutions Headquarters

(As far as I can tell, not an empty lot.)

WaMu's response to my letter

2006-03-27T08:50:00.000-08:00

Below is the response my grandmother received last week from Andrew Samuel, Quality Service Manager, to my letter to Fay Chapman, Senior Executive Vice-President and General Counsel. I apologize for not providing a larger, better quality image for those who wish to read, but I tried to conserve bandwidth as much as possible. Click on the image for an enlarged version of the letter.

A summary of the contents:

1. Washington Mutual accepts no responsibility for the protection of its customer's account.

2. The two phone-authorized checks we cashed against your account were valid "negotiable instruments" according to what is defined as a "demand draft" in Uniform Commercial Code 3104. Under this code, any check presented by a third party under your "purported authority" will be cashed.

3. A demand draft can be authorized by nothing more than one of our customers stating yes and confirming the city in which their account is held.

4. Washington Mutual's Forgery Department's responsibility is to place as much liability as possible on our customers. The Forgery Department is "very familiar" with telemarketing companies such as the one that defrauded you, yet Washington Mutual still unquestionly processes checks from them.

5. Washington Mutual is no different than other financial institution in accepting checks of this nature.

I give Washington Mutual and Mr. Samuel credit on two counts:

1. He wrote out a personally signed letter within 2 weeks of receiving my letter.

2. He answered each of the questions I raised.

I'm not satisfied by the response. In fact, I'm even more outraged by the grounds upon which Washington Mutual defends their acceptance of these checks. And his letter raises as many questions as it answers.

Mr. Samuel provides a phone number: 1-800-225-5497, option 2. I am going to write down my questions and contact him sometime in the coming week.

weekly update

2006-03-24T10:41:00.000-08:00

By necessity, I'm putting my campaign to get Grandma's money back into cruise control. But I'm still going to try to update this every week or two until I reach some kind of satisfactory resolution -- especially now that I'm starting to be contacted by people who have ended up on this site via major search engines.

Here's a summary of the responses (or lack of) that I've got from various companies and organization I've contacted in trying to resolve this:

Client Care Relations (1-866-898-7489)
Contacted them just now and simply asked for an update on my Grandma's refund check. Told by David Employee #533 (who I believe is the same person I spoke to last time) that check was cut and mailed on 3/6 and my Grandma should have it no later than Monday. This flatly contradicts what he told me last time so I suspect he is lying through his teeth.

Washington Mutual (1-866-513-9186)
No response yet to my letter.

Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher (website)
No response to email I sent her last week.

National Fraud Information Center (website)
No response to message I sent through their website.

Canadian Competition Bureau (website)
I received the following response on Mar 20:

Dear Mr. Withheld,

Your comment has been forwarded to the Fair Business Practices Branch of the Competition Bureau. Thank you.

Regards,

Information Officer

I have received no further response.

Response from AARP

2006-03-20T11:52:00.000-08:00

A form letter by the looks of it, but some new leads (or links) which I may pursue if I find the time. They all sound a bit toothless. But that's one of the reasons I put together this blog -- so I can take full advantage of life in the age of digital reproduction and, rather than re-telling or re-writing out the whole sordid tale, just send them a link here.

Thank you for contacting AARP to ask for help in fighting consumer
fraud and for sharing your grandmother's story with us.

The Association is committed to providing information on all types of
consumer fraud. We invite you to visit the AARP website at
http://www.aarp.org/money/consumerprotection/scams/ for a host of
articles on the subject.

You may be interested in ordering our brochure, "The Top Frauds and
Scams" (D18110), or our companion publication, "Consumer Protection:
A Guide to Your Rights and Choices" (D17795). To order, send an
email to Member@AARP.org. Be sure to include publication titles and
stock numbers along with your complete name and mailing address. You
may also call us toll free at the number shown below, or write to us
at:

AARP Fulfillment
601 E Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20049

If you have doubts about a sales pitch or suspect you are the victim
of fraud, there are several ways to report these incidents. We have
included a list of organizations and how to contact them that may
prove useful.

We hope this information is helpful. Thank you again for contacting
AARP.

_________________________________________________________

CONTACT INFORMATION

To report Internet and telemarketing fraud

National Fraud Information Center (NFIC)
c/o National Consumers League
1701 K Street, N.W., Suite1200
Washington, DC 20006
1-800-876-7060 (toll-free fraud hotline)
http://www.fraud.org/

To report all types of consumer fraud and order publications

Consumer Response Center
Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room H-130
Washington, DC 20580
1-877-382-4537
http://www.ftc.gov/ftc/consumer.htm

To report incidents to your state attorney general's office, check
the government pages of your area telephone book

National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG)
750 First Street, N.E., Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20002
1-202-326-6000
http://www.naag.org/

To report customs fraud, including people impersonating customs
agents

Customs Headquarters
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20229
1-800-232-5378
http://www.customs.ustreas.gov/

To report fraudulent business activity, check your area telephone
directory for a listing of your local Better Business Bureau, or
consider filing a complaint online

http://www.bbb.org/

To report fraudulent calls or mail coming from Canada

Project Phonebusters
1-888 495-8501
http://www.phonebusters.com/

Regards,
Ayan A.
Member Service
Member@aarp.org

Toll-free 1-888-OUR-AARP (1-888-687-2277)
Toll-free 1-877-434-7598 TTY

I did fill out an NFIC Online Incident Report Form, but as with so many of these forms I've seen, it's unnecessarily long, ugly, and gives no assurance that it will prompt an immediate response. So I kept it simple:

If you are serious about pursuing this you'll read my detailed account of the fraud, the various parties involved, and what I've done to fight it on my site here:

http://wamublamesgrandma.blogspot.com/

The one thing that makes it worth reading: it does offer a clear and simple solution for preventing what appears to be a very common form of phone fraud targeting senior citizens.

Email to Assemblywoman Lynn Daucher

2006-03-17T14:44:00.000-08:00

My grandmother passed along a postcard her local state assemblywoman, Lynn Daucher (72nd District - R), had sent her advertising a "Senior Scam Stopper Town Hall." I'd be really skeptical of getting much help out of a Republican politician -- or a Democratic politician, for that matter -- (but especially a Republican politican), given the fact that the scam that caught grandma can be traced back to corporate-lobby-written legislation like Check 21.

Nevertheless, I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt and sent the following note to her through her website:

My grandmother was recently scammed. I'm working on her behalf to try to right what happened.

She lives in Anaheim and recently received your mailing about your Senior Scam Stopper Town Hall.

She wanted me to share what I've done in response to what happened to her:

http://wamublamesgrandma.blogspot.com/

This scam looks like it targets seniors and appears to present a huge financial risk to people with checking accounts.

I hope my work is of some assistance. Please contact me at my email address if you have any questions.

I'll post any response I get here.

New Letter to Canadian Competition Bureau

2006-03-17T09:22:00.000-08:00

Don't suspect this will have much effect, if any. But on the off-chance that the Bureau is compiling a dossier to file away for later review and perhaps reference in a government study or report someday, I wrote them another letter:

I wrote you a couple weeks ago about a Canadian company, CCR, that works in league with scammers here in the US and helped defraud my grandmother of at least $798. I've been documenting my interactions with them so I won't repeat them here, but will refer you to my blog, where the facts are laid out in detail.

http://tinyurl.com/f5rzn

Please contact me if I may be of further assistance in penalizing or, ideally, putting these crooks out of business.

O, Canada... don't let me down.

Update on Refund from Client Care Relations

2006-03-17T09:03:00.000-08:00

Last week I noted ("Refund in Process") I was told by Client Care Relations (CCR), 1-866-898-7489, the company that represents Identity Theft Prevention (ITP), the company that scammed my grandmother, that a refund was in process and she should be receiving a check within 7-10 business days.

I called back today to check up on the status of the refund check. To my utter shock and amazement, I learned that there had been a change in the status of the refund. David, employee #533, informed me that I had been misinformed by Louis (who really appeared at the time to have a very firm grasp of the process). A check has not yet been cut, much less mailed.

David stated that the check first would attempt to be directly deposited to my grandmother's Wamu account, which has now been closed of course. If that failed, then the process for cutting a refund check would start, but he did not know how long that would take or what exactly is involved. He said it could take several months.

A couple other interesting/disturbing facts I learned:

1. When I asked for the address of the company, he gave me a new address:

1320 State Route #9
Champlaine, NY 12919

First Google result: www.actionseniors.org

My question: why is the Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater Philadelphia partnering with these scoundrels?

I think I've found the answer: they're a front for this crooked company.

The web page list a phone number: 1-800-454-2290. I'm currently on hold with this number but there's no no sign that anyone is ever going to pick up.

2. He said there was also another case on record for my grandma dating back to 9/15/2005. This involved another CCR client, Priority Assistance Group, that charged or attempted to charge my grandmother $398 (forget 3 -- 398 must be the magic number) for Group Prescription coverage.

My grandma never made any reference to this, making me think one of two things happened:

1. When the company tried to cash this check, it got stopped in process -- perhaps by Wamu (which would only make their failure to do so in this instance all the more maddening.)

2. The check was cashed but my grandma either overlooked it (not likely) or was too embarrassed to mention it (which I doubt, too.)

In any event, a refund has been requested on that case, too. It's in process.

I am going to write to the Canadian Competition Bureau again and apprise them of the latest news on my dealings with CCR.

Letter to AARP

2006-03-16T16:29:00.000-08:00

As is probably obvious by this time, I have been making an active effort in my spare time to publicize this site and what happened. Today I wrote AARP through their website:

My grandmother was recently ripped off by some phone scammers. I investigated what happened and have been documenting what happened on my blog. The scammers are scum but what really maddened me was the way in which Washington Mutual (1) exposed my grandmother's checking account and (2) basically blamed her for what happened.

Full details here:

http://wamublamesgrandma.blogspot.com/

I get the feeling many seniors are being victimized by these kinds of scammers thanks to Wamu's check verification policies.

I hope that this can be of some help to your organization and its members.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thanks,
Tom

It's been about a week since I wrote Washington Mutual. I still have not received any response to my letter.

Status: Undeliverable as Addressed

2006-03-15T21:42:00.000-08:00

End result of attempt to return scammers' package as instructed:

Your item was undeliverable as addressed at 1:20 pm on March 14, 2006 in LAS VEGAS, NV 89102. It is being returned if appropriate information is available.

WaMu's new ad campaign

2006-03-15T11:05:00.000-08:00

You've probably seen the new commercials with the stodgy, old bankers in the basement that the Wamu spokesman says they are actively ignoring.

Here's the Adweek summary:

* CHICAGO Publicis Groupe's Leo Burnett depicts Washington Mutual using a captive focus group of stodgy, rich bankers to help guide its business decision in the agency's first work for the client.

* In television spots breaking today, the agency introduces the idea of the "banker's pen," where a pool of rich bankers is kept in the basement of a Washington Mutual branch.

* The new spots introduce a free checking product, which offers free ATM cash withdrawals, a free overdraft waiver, free checks for life and cash back for debit card use.

My question for Washington Mutual: was it one of those old bankers in the basement that told you not to accept checks like this?

If so, maybe you should hear out a few of their ideas. (One conclusion a cynic might draw from all of this: Washington Mutual doesn't mind sacrificing a few senior citizens if it serves the higher purpose of their own public image.)

A more detailed description of the new Wamu ad campaign can be found here:

Washington Mutual Launches National Advertising Campaign in Support of Its New WaMu Free Checking(TM) Account, Stirs Up the Industry

I suspect it has less to do with stirring up the industry than covering their ass(ets).

Correction: Identity Theft Prevention

2006-03-14T17:55:00.000-08:00

Someone pointed out that I've made several references to the company behind the scam that ripped off my company as Identity Theft Protection. As printed on the check, it should read Identity Theft Prevention. (My apologies to Identity Theft Protection.)

A small point, but one that might prove meaningful for anyone doing an internet search on them.

as dugg on digg

2006-03-13T17:53:00.000-08:00

Thanks to my friend tidokoro for the digg plug. I added my own comment this morning. Thanks also for the label () -- very cool.

Also, I was surprised to find this story featured on the front page of consumerist.com. I sent off an email to them yesterday after hearing a story about their March Madness worst company tournament on the NPR show, Marketplace. I guess Wamu didn't make the tournament. Too bad, they've been playing like champions lately.

Also, regarding the Google Maps photo, I put up:

Someone on consumerist comments:

Google maps are routinely a block or two off. My home shows up as in the middle of the street a block behind us.

Good point. Someone else pointed this out to me after I originally posted it. Also, I'm aware that Google Maps photos are a little out-of-date. So it's possible that a thriving office complex sprung up on this lot within the last 6 months. Or that Identity Theft Protection is actually operating out of the McDonald's two doors down. If anyone in the neighborhood there is reading this and can check it out, please let us know.

advice for dealing with unsolicited calls from banks

2006-03-11T16:07:00.000-08:00

I could've sworn I was on the Do Not Call List. Whatever the case, Bank of America has been calling me a lot lately. I used to just tell them I wasn't in and offer to take a message when they asked for me. Now I say, "Good I'm glad you've called. I was just about to call you. I heard about all these pin numbers being stolen this week. Has my ATM card been compromised?"

Usually, they'll say something like, "Uh, you'll want to speak to another department," or, "Actually, I'm calling from the insurance company B of A has sold your personal information to," and give me a different number to call.

"Thank you. I'll do that now. Good bye." Click.

Actually, you could probably use this strategy with any unsolicited call -- not just banks. Just don't give them any personal information about you.

follow-up on compromised Wamu debit cards

2006-03-10T10:39:00.000-08:00

The day after I posted this this:

Compromised Wamu Debit Cards?

this story appeared on msnbc.com:

Debit card thieves get around PIN obstacle

From the article:

Several banks have made clear in their announcements that PINs were stolen and used to make fraudulent withdrawals.

I explain in my post the way by which Wamu informed their customers of the breach (they didn't).

The whole article is worth reading, especially if you use a debit (as opposed to credit) card.

Refund in Process

2006-03-10T10:06:00.000-08:00

Client Care Relations (CCR), 1-866-898-7489, the company that represents Identity Theft Protect (ITP), the company that scammed my grandmother, claims that a refund of the full amount of my grandma's check (the first one) is now being processed by Paramount Processing, the company that handles their refund processing. Yes, the business partnerships are all rather amazingly octopussian in nature. All this to rip off senior citizens over the phone -- that's free market synergy for you!

My grandma's not counting her refund checks before their cashed, but I don't doubt that they are sending her a refund.

Why? Was I too harsh in judging these business as sleazy scam artists?

Of course not. They just don't want too much of a fuss. They have enough victims that roll over meekly or don't even know where to start in trying to recover their money, that it's much simpler for them to just sweep away the troublemakers as quickly as possible.

What's funny is CCR was originally telling me that I had to send the junk mail my grandmother received back to the fraud merchants at ITP and call them back with a mailing receipt number before they could start processing the refunds. However, I called today to confirm the mailing information and I was told that the refund was already in process and a check should reach my grandma within the next couple weeks.

I went ahead and sent the material back by certified mail to the address CCR originally gave me:

Identity Theft Protection
1117 Desert Lane #100
Las Vegas, NV 89102

I'm curious to see what happens to the package, since this is the latest Google satellite photo of that location:

My certified receipt number:
7005 3110 0002 2159 9452

Feel free to track along from home.

what $400 gets you from ITP

2006-03-10T07:58:00.000-08:00

not pictured: junk mail flyers

slashdot article on combating identity theft

2006-03-09T10:22:00.000-08:00

Yesterday from slashdot:

An anonymous reader writes "Net-Security is running an interesting article about some of the problems facing organizations when it comes to identity theft. From the article: 'Identity theft is the major security concern facing organizations today. Indeed, for the banking industry, it is the number one security priority for 2006. Identity security has developed beyond the simplest form of authentication where one party issues and verifies identities within a closed group of users. While easy to do, this approach is extremely hard and costly to scale upwards and offers no interoperability with other authentication networks.'"

My contribution to the post-article discourse:

not ID theft in the cool high tech sense, but...

I like the response:

Why is this surprising?
The US banking industry has documented policies that permit and encourage this to occur.
Get a 20th century banking system, and these incidents will stop virtually completely.

Amen.

postscript to letter

2006-03-08T17:35:00.000-08:00

It is probably worth noting that when my mom contacted Wamu after my grandma discovered the first unauthorized check on her account, she requested that only checks signed by my grandmother be cashed. WM replied that this was not possible.

Also, when I tried to contact the number listed for verifying authorization on the second check (the PowerTamers one) (see below), I was dumped in a dead voicemail box. This suggests that Wamu in fact never even tried to verify the authenticity of the second check. I suppose it's possible that the number had been abandoned within the last couple weeks after WM had contacted someone and assured themselves of the check's authority -- or, more to the point, assured themselves that they could deny responsibility for cashing it. But I find it more probably that, like Stephen Jay Gould in that episode of the Simpsons with the angel bones, they simply never did the test.

Letter to Fay L. Chapman, Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel (unreformatted version)

2006-03-08T13:56:00.000-08:00

Pasting this from Word -- haven't reformatted it for the web yet.

This might be considered the Long Version of what happened:

Fay L. Chapman
Senior Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Washington Mutual, Inc.
1201 Third Avenue, WMT 1501
Seattle, WA 98101

Forgery Department
Washington Mutual, Inc.
PO Box 201079, STA2FOR
Stockton, CA 95290

Re: My Grandmother, Case #200602xxxxx

Dear Ms. Chapman,

I'd like to share with you details of a fraud against my grandmother's Washington Mutual checking account. It resulted in her losing nearly $700 (about half her account balance) and led her to close her account and discontinue her business with Washington Mutual. I have spoken with representatives of Washington Mutual (WM) on your customer support phone line. I received incomplete and unsatisfactory answers to questions I raised about this incident. I was instructed to write this letter.

I am writing this letter as:

1. a concerned grandson
2. a Washington Mutual personal checking account holder myself
3. someone who would really like to see the type of people who victimized my grandmother and evidently make a career doing this put out of business

My grandmother is a responsible, independent, well-read 80 year-old widow. She still attends extension classes at her local university and is not a fool. She is not poor but lives in subsidized housing on fixed income. Her one failing: she was too polite to hang up on a phone solicitor and too trusting to recognize a scam in the making. After vainly filing a fraud claim with your Forgery Department, she closed her account and wisely decided to put this behind her as much as possible. It gives her a headache and, happily, she has better things to do with her time. Believe when I say I do as well. But she has given me her blessing in pursuing this matter and I have taken it up as a matter of civic responsibility if nothing else.

I have addressed this to you because I expect it will hold some special interest for you as an executive and general counsel for Washington Mutual or at least for someone who reports directly to you. I have also addressed it to Washington Mutual’s Forgery Department as advised, though I don’t have much confidence in the attention or helpfulness of this department for reasons explained below.

This is what happened, as best I can gather based on phone calls to representatives of the scammers, communications with Washington Mutual customer support, and conversations with my grandmother:

1. In December, she was phoned multiple times by men who possessed her account number and offered to credit her account in return for her cooperation in some kind of vague financial transaction. She admitted that it sounded “hokey,” but did not recognize it as a scam to defraud her account. She never wrote a check to them, never agreed to purchase anything, and never authorized them to withdraw funds from her account.

2. On December 22, Identity Theft Protection (ITP) printed a check in her name for the amount of $398. Though it was printed with her name, her (incomplete) street address, her account information, and Washington Mutual's name, it was not a check from her checkbook, she did not sign it, and it was cashed in Cleveland, OH, on the other side of the country. On December 28, WM processed the check and transferred the funds from her account.

3. The fraudulent transaction came to her attention at the end of January when she received her next statement from WM. She did not recognize the transaction and immediately phoned WM to report the unauthorized withdrawal. Around the same time, she received a package from a company named Identity Theft Protection in Las Vegas, NV. It contained generic brochures on identity theft and some miscellaneous junk mail. Apparently, this was the service or product the "merchants" presumed to offer my grandmother in return for her $398.

4. On February 14, the WM forgery department sent her an unsigned form letter stating that because the “merchant(s) in question voice-recorded the authorization for the transaction(s) in question,” her claim for reimbursement had been rejected. The letter went on to state, “In order to minimize the risk of future losses from against your compromised account, your account is scheduled to be closed with 15 business days from the date of this letter.” Because her social security checks must be directly deposited to an active account, she closed her account and opened a new one at a different bank with the assistance of her son and daughter (my mom) the following week.

5. Meanwhile, on February 7, after my grandmother had first reported the unauthorized withdrawal, WM honored another check for $299. Although the check was made out to a different company, the check otherwise looked identical to the first.

6. In recent days, I have contacted on several occasions a phone number listed on the first check. The number belongs to Client Care Relations, a Canadian firm that, according to agents with the company I have spoken to, represents over 60 firms. They would not give me any information on the company Identity Theft Protection that forged the check in my grandmother's name, but instructed me to send back the materials my grandmother had received by certified mail then call them back a week later with the receipt number and they would begin processing a refund with ITP. I am in the process of doing this. In phoning them, I also requested to hear the recorded authorization for the transaction. It was played for me and I maintain serious doubts about its authenticity. Client Care Relations claimed to have no knowledge of the second check and attempts to contact the number listed on the check end up in an anonymous voicemail box that is full and accepting no new messages.

7. Last week, I phoned Washington Mutual with my grandmother on the line to follow up on this matter. Before calling, I had drawn up a summary of events (like this one but much briefer) and questions regarding WM's policies and practice in handling my grandmother's account during these events. I spoke to two people who were unable to provide specific answers to my questions before being transferred to Jose Portilla who identified himself as a manager in the Forgery Department. He reiterated that my grandmother's forgery claim had been reviewed, rejected, and closed, and recommended I write this letter.

Listed below are the questions I wrote out before calling WM customer support and a summary of the responses I received:

1. These checks were not signed by my grandmother, did not originate from her checkbook or Washington Mutual, and were unlike any checks that have ever been written against her account before. Why did Washington Mutual honor them? What legitimate purpose could they possibly serve?

I never received a sensible answer to this question. I was informed that WM processed a number of these kinds of checks and they were processed automatically. The automatic acceptance of these checks seems to present a massive security risk for WM checking account holders.

2. What is the maximum amount for which Washington Mutual will automatically process with no additional security precautions?

I was told that there is no limit, only the funds available within the account. This surprised me.

3. How did Washington Mutual conduct their fraud investigation? What company did they contact? To whom did they speak?

The WM representative I spoke to could provide no details of how the investigation was conducted. The letter my grandmother received from WM's Forgery Department indicated only that the merchant possessed a voice recording authorizing the withdrawal and reprinted the phone number listed on the check.

4. The letter from WM's Fraud Department referred to a voice-recorded authorization. I have heard this recording. It sounded as though it had been both recorded out of context and doctored. How did WM's Fraud Department verify the authenticity of the recording?

WM reps could not answer this question and refused to allow me to speak to anyone in the department who might be able to answer it. Rather, both the phone agent Akiva and her manager Jose Portilla asked whether my grandmother had said her account number in the recording. I said that she had, but noted that she had not authorized the transaction. Both maintained that this was sufficient authorization. I reframed the question for Mr. Portilla:

5. Is it then the case that any merchant or criminal that records my grandmother saying her account number can print a check in her name and withdraw funds from her account in any amount?

He agreed that this was the case. I remain astounded. Mr. Portilla said at this point he could be of no further assistance and advised me to restate my concerns in writing.

From this interaction, I concluded the following:

1. Anyone can print up a check on my account in the way that these scammers did and Washington Mutual will process it and transfer the money from my account to theirs. The information required is public information and readily available -- anyone to whom I've written a check or who has served in the processing of that check necessarily has access to it. Because Washington Mutual accepts these dubious third-party checks, it is powerless to stop fraudulent checks in process.

2. If, after the fact, the scammers, con-men, or criminals can produce a recording in which I say my account number, regardless of the context, Washington Mutual will absolve itself of all responsibility for its role in the fraud by claiming that I “compromised my own account.”

Please correct me if I am wrong in any of these particulars. This however is the direct conclusion I drew from the very specific questions and concerns I raised with Washington Mutual support staff as they related to the forgery involving my grandmother.

As a Washington Mutual personal checking account holder myself, these revelations concern me immensely. Furthermore, Washington Mutual's apparent indifference in accepting suspicious checks and laxity in investigating claims of fraud strike me as the critical weakness in a system that appears to grossly benefit unscrupulous merchants and criminals who prey on senior citizens.

I feel compelled to add, as a final point, that having had to deal with customer service staff for both your company and representatives for the company that actively defrauded my grandmother, the latter proved on the whole more professional in tone and cooperative in nature. Despite my frustration with WM's actions, I made it a point to remain polite and civil through my conversation with your staff. The courtesy was not always returned.

Additionally, I found the process of navigating WM’s bureaucracy extraordinarily aggravating. My grandmother and I were transferred twice, with delays at each step. To finally be transferred to Jose Portilla required my grandmother and I to wait on hold for 15 minutes, without any warning of how long the wait would be or updates on when he would available to take our call. Perhaps this was a phone room vigilante's simple vindictiveness. But then when my grandmother and mom went to my grandmother's local branch to close her account, they had to wait a half-hour while one of your branch managers waited on hold on the phone herself for one of WM's own departments to unfreeze the account so that it might be closed. If this is not maverick pettiness of a few rogue employees within your company, you really need to give some attention to improving your internal organization.

While such service has not been my general experience as an account holder with your institution over the last several years, the exception in this case is almost strong enough to wipe out the effect of all the positive service I've experienced, not to mention all the Washington Mutual commercials I've seen, during that time.

I hope you or someone at Washington Mutual will be able to address in reasonable detail the questions and concerns about Washington Mutual check policy and account security that I have raised here. Mr. Portilla told me that it might require as much as 30 days for a response, but that I could expect a personal response. Considering the time and energy I have invested in this matter, I hope I may see a speedier reply. In any event, I hope my efforts will be of some service to both your institution and your account holders generally.

Sincerely,
wamuonfraud@gmail.com

Compromised Wamu Debit Cards?

2006-03-08T08:47:00.000-08:00

I was telling a friend of mine about my grandmother's experience this past weekend and she told me she had her own greivances to air about Wamu. Recently she was used her debit card at an ATM, but at the end of the transaction, the machine didn't return her card. She phoned customer support and was told a new one was already on its way. Shortly thereafter she received a new one in the mail, but the label had switched from Visa to Mastercard.

I told her it sounded fishy -- like Wamu had had an issue with the security on their Visa debit cards. One so serious, in fact, that they programmed their ATMs to issue an immediate recall on all cards so that, without any warning to their customers, ATM machines started swallowing the ATM cards.

This hypothesis receives some confirmation from a reader of this blog who contacted me to write that her Wamu account had been defrauded 3 times by a person or people using her debit card number. After her first two reports, she was issued a new card but within 30 days her account was hit again. The fraud stopped after she was issued another new card -- which she noted, after I shared with her my friend's tale -- had indeed switch from the Visa to the Mastercard label.

I only have an ATM card so this didn't affect me, but it appears Wamu didn't offer any notice about this to any of their debit card holders in any case.

Want more fear and dread about your personal security? Listen to this morning's interview with ChoicePoint marketing officer, James Lee, on NPR. What bullshit. The piece is titled "There Are Good Uses of Information, and Bad" on the NPR website, but, from the individual consumer's point-of-view, I have a hard time seeing the good the will come from a private corporation selling your personal information.

Public Comments

2006-03-07T21:48:00.000-08:00

Update: since the site has been linked on dugg, I figure I'll make that the de facto forum for people wishing to comment on this site:

public comments on digg

I've received a couple interesting notes from readers of this blog who have had their own problems with Washington Mutual. I've added this entry for the purpose of serving as a sort of forum for reader comments. I'll add a fixed link to the home page shortly.

Had a problem with a WaMu account or been scammed by crooks like my grandma? Perhaps you're a scammer or con man yourself? You're all welcome to comment here.

Check #1

2006-03-06T21:15:00.000-08:00

With grandma's permission, here is the first check printed by the scammers and processed by WaMu to withdraw funds from grandma's account. I've black-barred my grandma's personal information and some numbers on the check to protect her identity as much as possible.

The three black bars at the upper right conceal her name and address (which was not entirely correct -- her apartment number was missing.) She said that they had her account number when they called.

Note: this is not a check from grandma's checkbook, there is no signature, no check like this had even been used by my grandma before, the check was printed by the scammers themselves, it was cashed at bank in Cleveland -- on the other side of the country. Yet WaMu still transferred the funds out of my grandma's account and called the transaction legitimate.

Correction

2006-03-06T13:24:00.000-08:00

I originally wrote that grandma was swindled of nearly $600. Apparently, scammers can add better than I can -- it was actually close to $700. I've updated my summary above.

PowerTamers 877-436-5100

2006-03-06T13:09:00.000-08:00

The original fraudulent activity on my grandmother's bank account in December came to her attention when she received her monthly statement from Washington Mutual at the end of January. She immediately phoned WM to initiate a fraud claim (which was rejected.) Yet, on February 2, a different company (in name at least) drew up a second check for $299 which, too, was unquestioningly processed by WM a couple days later and the funds transfered from my grandmother's account to some sleazeball affliliated with an account with National City Bank (no, the name doesn't make any sense to me either) in Cleveland, Ohio.

The check looks in every way identical to the first except for the name of the company to which it's paid, the memo (it says is for "Internet Services and Power Saver" -- my grandma does not have a computer) and the phone number in authorization statement on it, which reads

This payment has been authorized by the above name depositor and is guaranteed by the payee. For questions regarding this check, please call 877-436-5100.

For the record, it was not guaranteed by the payee -- in fact, it was entirely unbeknownst to her -- and if you do have questions, call her first. Because if you call that number, you will get an automated system that eventually dumps you in a full voicemail box.

I'm going to call back later and record what happens and put a link to the file here. But first, I am going to try to get photos of the two checks uploaded later today.

If you're trying to learn more about PowerTamers, Google is not much help.

Uniform Commercial Code Article 3

2006-03-05T10:45:00.000-08:00

My uncle -- who's been helping my grandmother get this mess sorted out -- pointed me to the UCC after he came across it on this site (ckfraud.org) while doing some research into check fraud. I told him I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out this site were run by a company like the one that ripped off Grandma. Still, it contained some useful information that helped point me to more reliable sources, like this Cornell University site on the UCC:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-406.html

Here's what I gather is the relevant legal code:

3-406. NEGLIGENCE CONTRIBUTING TO FORGED SIGNATURE OR ALTERATION OF INSTRUMENT.

* (a) A person whose failure to exercise ordinary care substantially contributes to an alteration of an instrument or to the making of a forged signature on an instrument is precluded from asserting the alteration or the forgery against a person who, in good faith, pays the instrument or takes it for value or for collection.

* (b) Under subsection (a), if the person asserting the preclusion fails to exercise ordinary care in paying or taking the instrument and that failure substantially contributes to loss, the loss is allocated between the person precluded and the person asserting the preclusion according to the extent to which the failure of each to exercise ordinary care contributed to the loss.

* (c) Under subsection (a), the burden of proving failure to exercise ordinary care is on the person asserting the preclusion. Under subsection (b), the burden of proving failure to exercise ordinary care is on the person precluded.

Good luck making that out! Whoever wrote that should be forced to sit on hold with Washington Mutual while they write that out 1000 times. Then they should be re-enrolled in a freshman university composition class.

After re-reading it several time, this is what I finally figured out it was probably trying to say (at least as it applies here):

"We the lawmakers behind this legislation have worded this section confusingly and ambiguously enough that, in the case of a dispute between a large financial corporation and one of its account holders, the dispute can be decided according to whatever way an empowered legal authority sees fit to interpret 'ordinary care'. If you're the account holder, and you're lucky, you'll get to split the difference."

I'm not even sure the checks -- that the scammer, I repeat, printed up themselves -- qualify as "forged instruments". But I believe the purported recording of my grandmother's authorization (which I now have a copy of) should. I'm going to add links to both these documents some time this week.

More info on the UCC can be found on Wikipedia. Of special interest:

The Code, as the product of private organizations, is not itself the law, but only has the force of law if enacted by states. The ALI-NCCUSL has also established a permanent editorial board for the Code which has issued a number of official comments and other published papers concerning the Code. Although these commentaries do not have the force of law, courts interpreting the Code will often cite them as persuasive authority in determining the effect of one or more provisions.

The Code, in one or another of its several revisions, has been enacted in 49 of the 50 states.

Uniform Commercial Code (wikipedia.org)

So it sounds like -- in making reference to the UCC as the law in a dispute with a major financial corporation over a fraudulent check -- you may well be disputing a party that helped write the law. Good luck.

wamu's response to fraud claim

2006-03-04T07:55:00.000-08:00

Summary:

There was no fraud, but your account was compromised.

short version added

2006-03-03T17:25:00.000-08:00

added as brief a summary of the matter as possible at the top of the page for get-to-the-point visitors to this site. hopefully, it's short and punchy enough to get someone's attention.

footnotes to the last post

2006-03-02T21:30:00.000-08:00

A couple things I thought worth noting related to the last post:

1. Harrison Adams
Again, the name of the verification officer. His company's name: Identity Theft Protection, or ITP.

2. 1-888-742-0880
This is the number he gives at the end of the recording to call if there are any questions. To get the recording, I called 1-866-898-7489 -- the number that had been printed on the check (in the box where the signature usually goes.)

3. Client Care Relations
This is the company that handles customer support (i.e. runs interference) for ITP. There phone number is. (It says something that their operators were much more professional and helpful than Washington Mutual's, even though I was probably more aggressive and demanding -- though always polite -- in my question of them.) This article I found is worth a look:

Hundreds hit by alleged Net drug scam

From the article:

When people call the phone number listed next to the charge on their accounts, they reach operators who identify themselves as employees of Client Care Relations in Montreal -- a third-party firm which handles phone calls for PharmacyCards.com. Operators tell callers that there's no way to reach PharmacyCards.com and then offer to refund their money.

The article led me to this site, run (I hope) by a Canadian government agency:

https://www.competitionbureau.gc.ca/internet/index.cfm

There I filed the following complaint:

I got your address through this MSNBC article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4534338/

I ended up there after doing a search on Client Care Relations. This company represents a company that defrauded my grandmother here in the US. While it seems that they did not perpetrate the fraud themselves, it is evident from the article that they are an ongoing accomplice in such matters.

I'm detailing my case here:

http://wamublamesgrandma.blogspot.com/

I've withheld some personal information above, but the first name and phone number is correct if you wish to contact me.

The bureau's phone number is: 1-800-348-5358

the recording

2006-03-02T20:14:00.000-08:00

I've had to revise my position. I called the company that serves as customer relations for the merchant that scammed my grandmother today. I listened several times to the recording which they had on file and claimed was evidence of my grandmother's informed consent to withdraw funds from her account. With their consent, I made a copy using my computer microphone.

The first time I heard it, I was convinced that it was spliced together from several conversations by the merchant so that it could fraudulently represent her authorization. This was in large part because of what my grandmother had told me had happened. But I forced myself to be fair and check with my grandmother to determine whether this was in fact a manipulated recording or the actual conversation that took place.

I played it for my grandmother over the phone this afternoon. She wasn't positive it wasn't edited, but said that she remembers being talking to a couple different people over the course a several calls. The trick of the scam hinged upon two factors:

1. The operator who originally called her transferred her to "the verification officer on duty," Harrison Adams. Harrison Adams had a very assertive demeanor and rapidly asked my grandmother to verify a few pieces of information, including her name, address, bank, checking account number, and routing number. The second operator is the small print guy who actually extracts the words from her that may (I'd like to emphasize the legally unsettled status of this conclusion) transform this scam from outright criminal fraud into a legal but highly unscrupulous, totally scumbag fleecing.

2. Specifically, the con hinges on the way in which Harrison Adams phrases his request to withdraw funds from her account. The first operator told her that the funds would be deposited into her account. Harrison Adams first states:

"...All right, do you one-time registration [sic] for the ITP ID Protection Package."

It starts as a question, but he does not leave room for her response. This must be deliberate. I don't doubt she wouldn't have said yes, had he asked her to affirm this, for, as she explains, more than the money promised her, she simply wished to be done with all the calls. (Why, if this is what she really wanted, she just didn't say, "No thanks, goodbye," is a question I leave for the psychologists and anthropologists out there to answer.)

Then her purported authorization. The agent says:

"Now Virgina [name altered to protect identity], $398 that you requested to be drafted from the checking account the 20th day of December, 2005, which is today. Is this correct?"

The fraud hinges on the word 'from'. Before this, the agent had emphasized the funds would be deposited into her account. Now they say they will be drawn from -- the preposition goes by fast, garbled, and unnoticed.

With my grandmother's consent, I will include a link to this recording here. I will dub over any personal information mentioned to protect her privacy.

Even if this were the actual transcript of their conversation, does this constitute a legal authorization? The agent and his company, ITP, (may they all rot with syphillus) obviously believed so. They drew up a check in my grandmother's name and cashed it with their bank.

Washington Mutual believed it was a legitimate authorization, too. They processed the check and transferred the funds from her account to the scam artists' account -- despite the fact that it was not a check from her checkbook, did not have her signature, did not look like any other check that had ever been presented against her account, and was paid to an out-of-state company.

The fact is, at least according to two representative from Washington Mutual I've spoken with, this check would have been processed and the funds withdrawn even if my grandmother had never said anything over the phone that sounded like an authorization. And there is no ceiling on the amount in which such a check could be written. The only limit to the amount which a dishonest merchant could take out of your account by printing a check with your information on it is the funds available in your account.

In a case where the unscrupulous merchant simply printed up a check without getting a voice recording of their victim, the difference would be that, when my grandmother initiated a fraud claim (as she did), Washington Mutual might actually stop payment or, if it were too late for that, call back the funds. It would do nothing to prevent the same dishonest company from doing the same thing tomorrow. Actually I learned yesterday that my grandmother had been hit a second time for $200 on this same account. A different company in name, but same type of check -- and it was presented after she had contacted Washington Mutual to initiate the fraud claim.

With my grandmother's consent, I'll also post a copy of the check -- marked to protect her identity -- here. Why such a check would ever be accepted is one of the questions Washington Mutual has not answered for me yet? I can see no necessary use for such an instrument except for fraud.

I'll post more on my grandmother and my interactions with Washington Mutual at the next opportunity.

blog established

2006-03-01T23:32:00.000-08:00

I've created this blog to document a dispute between my grandmother and her bank -- and mine -- Washington Mutual. I'll explain the source of the dispute in full. If what I have been told by representatives of Washington Mutual is true, the details of the matter will be of interest to a much wider audience than my immediate family as it suggests Washington Mutual is putting its account holders -- especially senior citizens for reasons I'll try to explain elsewhere -- at risk of fraud at a staggering level.

Note, some post may be retroactively dated in order to provide a more accurate chronology of our communications with Washington Mutual up until this date.