LPS shares red flags when receiving scam bank calls
The LaSalle Police Service is reminding of red flags to keep in mind when you get scam calls posing to be your bank or other agencies.
While the caller might have accurate information about you, such as your name, address, birthdate, or social insurance number, the LPS said that doesn't validate who is calling you.
'With technology, the caller can duplicate your bank's phone number in a method called 'spoofing',' police wrote in a Facebook post.
When taking a call, look for the following red flags while speaking to the person on the phone:
You were asked to give money or buy gift cards
You received unsolicited calls/emails
They asked for personal information, like your pin number or address
There's a sense of urgency or secrecy
The number one rule the LPS reminded of is when in doubt, hang up. You can verify the information by calling or going to your bank.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
18 minutes ago
- CTV News
2 people arrested, handgun seized in connection with shooting in East York
Police are on the scene of a shooting in East York on Tuesday, June 24, 2025. (Simon Sheehan/CP24) Two people have been arrested, and a semi-automatic handgun has been seized in connection with the investigation into a shooting in East York that injured a man on Tuesday. Officers attended the area of Cosburn and Greenwood avenues shortly before 2:30 p.m. for reports of the sound of gunshots. Toronto police said one man fired a gun, striking another man during an altercation. When officers arrived, they located the victim with a non-life-threatening gunshot wound to the hand. As a result of an investigation, members of the Gun and Gangs Task Force identified the suspect and later located him in Whitby. Police said 22-year-old Owen Bayi Makouangou was taken into custody and during his arrest, a semi-automatic handgun and a quantity of cocaine were seized. Handgun The semi-automatic handgun seized during the arrest of a suspect in the shooting at East York on June 24, 2025. (Toronto Police Service) He has been charged with two counts of possession of a firearm without holding a licence, two counts of possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm knowingly not holding a licence, two counts of possession of a loaded regulated firearm, two counts of occupying a motor vehicle with a firearm and one count each of discharging a firearm with intent and possession for the purpose of trafficking a Schedule I substance. Police said 26-year-old Guy-Christophe Bangoura was also arrested as a result of their investigation. They did not say what the reason behind his arrest was. He has been charged with possession of a firearm without holding a licence, possession of a restricted or prohibited firearm knowingly not holding a licence, occupying a motor vehicle with a firearm and possession for the purpose of trafficking a Schedule I substance.
CTV News
22 minutes ago
- CTV News
Sharing ex's nudes with her employer was in ‘public interest,' B.C. tribunal rules
A woman who took her ex-partner to B.C.'s Civil Resolution Tribunal over his sharing of intimate images she sent him has lost her bid for compensation under the province's Intimate Images Protection Act. The images in question depicted the complainant 'exposing different private parts of her body and engaging in sexual acts,' and the respondent acknowledged sending those images to the complainant's employer, but CRT member Megan Stewart ruled that the images did not qualify as 'intimate' under the act, for a very specific reason. Images taken at work The identities of the parties involved in the case are subject to a publication ban and are redacted in Stewart's decision. The complainant is referred to by the initials 'MR,' and the respondent is referred to as 'SS.' According to the decision, which was published online Tuesday, MR sent photos and videos of herself to SS during their relationship that were taken 'while the applicant was at work, and during regular business hours.' After their relationship ended, SS sent the images to MR's employer, which is not named in the decision. 'The respondent says he shared the images with the applicant's employer to alert her superiors to her 'workplace misconduct,'' Stewart's decision reads. 'The applicant says the respondent acted with malicious intent to cause her embarrassment and reputational harm.' Under the Intimate Images Protection Act, the definition of an intimate image includes two components. First, the image must depict the subject engaging in a sexual act, nearly nude or exposing their genitals or breasts. And second, the subject of the image must have had a reasonable expectation of privacy when the images were taken. In this case, Stewart ruled that the first part of the test was clearly met, but the second part was not. 'The evidence suggested at least some of the images were taken in parts of the office that were accessible to the public or other employees,' the decision reads. Stewart agreed with MR that she had a reasonable expectation that her ex-partner would not share the images she sent to him 'with the public generally,' such as by publishing them on social media or an adult website. That expectation does not extend to the employer, however, according to the tribunal member's decision. 'A person who takes otherwise intimate recordings of themselves at work does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in those images to the extent they are shared with their employer for the purpose of investigating alleged misconduct, whatever the sharer's motives,' the decision reads. For this reason, Stewart ruled that the images did not meet the definition of 'intimate,' and dismissed the case. 'Public interest' in disclosing images Even if the images had qualified as intimate under the act, Stewart found damages would not have been warranted in the case. One of the possible defences the act sets out for those accused of sharing another person's intimate images is the argument that distributing the images 'was in the public interest and did not extend beyond what was in the public interest.' 'I find it was in the public interest for the respondent to share the applicant's images with her employer,' the decision reads. 'The applicant took the photos at work, on the employer's property, during business hours … The evidence suggested the locations where the images were taken were not always secure and private, including one photo that was undisputedly taken while the applicant was at the 'front counter.' I find even on a strict interpretation of what is in 'the public interest,' these specific circumstances are captured.' For this reason, Stewart ruled that SS should not be liable for damages, even if the images had been deemed 'intimate.'
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Senior scammed out of $2M
Winnipeg Watch A Manitoba senior recently lost $2 million to a cryptocurrency scheme. Joseph Bernacki has more.
