RBC tells customer she's responsible for $14K stolen from account in bank investigator scam
Her phone's call display showed the number was RBC's. Plus, the caller used language she's heard before when dealing with her bank.
"It was very, very, very well executed," said Plett, 44. "It's like they had the entire opening script memorized and rehearsed. There were just no red flags."
The caller told Plett, who lives just outside Montreal, that someone in Vancouver was trying to steal $2,000 from her bank account. So she complied when he instructed her to log into her RBC banking app while he was on the phone with her, and followed instructions he said would safeguard her money.
By the time the call was over, $14,510 had vanished from Plett's two RBC accounts, one personal and one for her marketing business. Plett said she found out she was scammed because the real RBC called her shortly after to report fraudulent activity in her account.
She says she didn't share any personal information or codes with the fraudster. But when she asked RBC for a refund, Plett says the bank declined, and told her that she was responsible because she was active in her account when the money disappeared.
"It's a lot of money," said Plett. "For you to have just a little bit of a savings account and it just to be gone, it's like, I'm going to cry now. You just feel helpless."
Plett is one of many victims of the bank investigator scam, where fraudsters pose as bank investigators or other types of fraud investigators — typically by phone. The scammers tell victims one or more of their banking products has been compromised, and they need to take urgent and necessary action, such as sharing credit card numbers.
In many cases, the fraudsters have personal information on the victim, such as their full name and the name of their bank. They also use a technique known as spoofing to make it appear as though they are calling from a number associated with the victim's bank.
"If they have personal information, then it makes it believable," said Jeff Horncastle, outreach officer with the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre. "Victims are seeing the number on the call display that they trust."
The scam isn't new, but it's growing in sophistication, leading to bigger financial losses.
For the first six months of this year, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre heard from 677 victims of the fraud, and recorded $11.7 million in financial losses — close to double the amount in the same period last year.
Montreal police, who are investigating a criminal network involved in the scam, told CBC News they have identified at least 220 RBC customers who were victims of the fraud. Police estimate total losses of $1.5 million.
RBC told CBC News the bank doesn't comment on ongoing police matters, but said that it worked closely with Montreal police during the investigation.
When should victims be compensated?
After RBC denied her refund, Plett says she escalated her case at the bank and was denied again, so she has now escalated it to the final level at RBC.
"They can do better for the people that are trusting them with their money," she said. "I understand that I messed up, but I didn't know I was messing up."
Victims of the bank investigator scam can seek reimbursement, but banks often hold the customer responsible and reject their request, or provide only a partial refund.
WATCH | Scotiabank scam victim on the hook for $20K:
Consumer advocate and lawyer Sylvie De Bellefeuille argues banks should be obligated to provide full compensation.
"People were tricked," she said. "They shouldn't be held liable. We have to take into consideration, these kind of scams are very elaborate strategies."
De Bellefeuille and her organization, Option Consommateurs, are currently helping 14 victims of the bank investigator scam — all seniors in Quebec — fight for reimbursement from their banks. She says 12 of the victims are RBC customers.
"[It] really has a bad effect on people," De Bellefeuille said, adding that some of the victims have lost part of their retirement savings.
Victims of credit card fraud are protected under federal law, but banks can argue the rules don't apply if they determine the customer "demonstrated gross negligence."
And there are currently no legislative requirements for banks to reimburse customers for unauthorized banking transactions, Finance Canada told CBC News.
De Bellefeuille says the federal government needs to beef up regulations to ensure victims of this type of scam get their money back.
"People feel victimized [the] first time because they've been a victim of fraud, but also a second time because, afterwards, the banks basically said, 'Well, sorry, it was your fault.'"
RBC responds
RBC spokesperson Cheryl Brean didn't answer questions about Plett's case, including questions about why the bank declined to provide a refund.
She did say the bank takes customer concerns seriously and deals with its clients directly. Brean also said that RBC works hard to prevent, detect and investigate fraud, which includes collaborating with police and other entities on the matter.
"Financial crimes are increasingly sophisticated," she wrote in an email.
On its website, RBC guarantees customers a full refund for digital transactions they didn't make or approve, if they show they've "been a victim of fraud, theft or have been coerced by trickery, force or intimidation."
Plett says because she learned she had been scammed from RBC, the bank knows she's a victim of fraud. She says when the real RBC called shortly after the scam call, the bank told her that a fraudster had made two wire transfers totalling $5,410 from her business account.
"They're the ones that called me and said there's been fraudulent activity in your account. So then you would think, 'Oh good, they're going to help me.' "
Plett's bank records, seen by CBC News, show that money was also taken from her mortgage line of credit. On top of losing $14,510, RBC charged her $35 in fees for the two wire transfers.
Hours after CBC News sent RBC a media inquiry about Plett's case, she said the bank called to tell her it's investigating the matter.
What is Ottawa doing?
Last year, the federal government held consultations on proposed changes to strengthen federal protections for bank customers.
Proposals include a requirement for banks to collect and report data on scams targeting customers, and provide fraud victims reimbursement beyond a yet to be determined amount, regardless of how their funds were accessed. The maximum amount card fraud victims are liable for is generally capped at $50.
The federal Department of Finance had no update for CBC News on when the proposals could take effect.
De Bellefeuille says change needs to come soon, because the bank investigator scam does not appear to be letting up.
"Lots of people are losing money."
If you get a fraud alert call from your bank, experts advise that you should hang up and call the bank back directly using the number on their official website or your bank card to ensure it was actually your bank that called.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NFL players, employees fined for selling Super Bowl tickets: reports
More than 100 NFL players and dozens of club employees are to be fined or suspended for selling their allocations of tickets for this year's Super Bowl on secondary markets, US media reported on Friday. ESPN reported that players who sold allotted tickets will be fined one-and-a-half times the face value of the tickets sold and be barred from receiving tickets to the next two editions of the Super Bowl. Players amongst those caught will be given the option of purchasing tickets if their team reaches the Super Bowl in 2026 or 2027. Players who decline to pay the fines face being suspended, ESPN cited league and union sources as saying. ESPN quoted an NFL memo sent to teams which said employees and players had sold tickets to "bundlers" working with a ticket resale site. Tickets to the Super Bowl are consistently one of the hottest -- and most expensive -- tickets in North American sport, fetching as much as $10,000 on resale sites. "Our initial investigation has determined that a number of NFL players and coaches, employed by several NFL Clubs, sold Super Bowl tickets for more than the ticket's face value in violation of the policy," NFL chief compliance officer Sabrina Perel wrote in the memo. Perel cited "long-standing league policy" which "prohibits League or club employees, including players, from selling NFL game tickets acquired from their employer for more than the ticket's face value or for an amount greater than the employee originally paid for the ticket, whichever is less." Perel added that the league will enhance mandatory training before Super Bowl LX for all league personnel to emphasize the rules and "the broader principle that no one should profit personally from their NFL affiliation at the expense of our fans." The league, meanwhile, also planned to improve training to avoid a repeat, with the possibility of stiffer sanctions for future offenses. "No one should profit personally from their NFL affiliation at the expense of our fans," Perel wrote in the memo. rcw/js
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Howard Levitt: For Coldplay concert couple, Canadian harassment law would top privacy concerns
If you want to know how far harassment protections have expanded in Canadian workplace law today, look no further than the Coldplay concert debacle. While most observers seem to agree that the two colleagues caught canoodling at a Boston Coldplay concert — the chief executive and head of HR for U.S. tech company Astronomer — have been appropriately (and very publicly) shamed, there are divisions on the question of professional punishment and accountability. I have read arguments suggesting that the relationship, while extramarital, was between two consenting adults, and therefore not deserving of reprimand or termination, or perhaps even investigation. Or that the company had no interest in getting involved, since there was no evidence of coercion or complaints of favouritism or violation of company policies. None of this is reflective of Canadian law today. First, all potential harassment must be investigated, whether there is a complaint or not. The fact that a relationship between a superior or subordinate is ostensibly 'consensual' does not end the issue legally. As the Ontario Court of Appeal noted last month in a case involving Metrolinx: 'There are many reasons why a victim of harassment might choose not to pursue an official complaint, none of which erase the harassing behaviour or the employer's obligation to investigate it to protect the workplace from a hostile or demeaning environment. … (A lack of complaint) does not relieve an employer of its statutory duty (under the Occupational Health and Safety Act of each province) to conduct an investigation' into harassment. The Court of Appeal in that case made clear that the obligation of an employer to investigate potential harassment is not just owed to the potential victim but to all employees in that workplace. But does the apparent affair between the CEO and HR head qualify as harassment, which therefore must be investigated? In 2001, there was a groundbreaking decision by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Simpson v. Consumers Association of Canada, in which the court made clear that there should be no assumption that a relationship is consensual even if it might appear so. Instead, an evaluation of the imbalance of power must occur to see if there may be factors affecting the individual's consent (scared of losing job, afraid of reprisal, etc.). 'It is an error to ignore the supervisory role of the alleged harasser and to treat him as one of the employees. … Mr. Simpson may well have viewed all of his conduct as consensual and therefore as welcome. Because of the power imbalance in an employee's relationship with a supervisor, and the perceived consequences to objecting to a supervisor's behaviour, particularly when the behaviour is not directed specifically at that employee … an employee may go along with the conduct. In those circumstances, the employee will be effectively consenting to unwelcome conduct because she feels constrained from objecting' This 25-year-old case highlighted that claims of consensual conduct will be closely examined when the individual involved holds a position of power. It is important to monitor relationships involving power differentials, as they give rise to legal risk. The court noted that anyone in a position of authority — and Andy Byron, the CEO in the Coldplay imbroglio would no doubt qualify — 'owes duties to their employer … to protect employees from harassing behaviour and to safeguard the employer from potential civil liability arising from such complaints. Any CEO consorting with an employee risks that employee later saying that they only succumbed to the CEO's advances to protect their job. In the Simpson case, the court also noted it is 'a workplace reality that it is difficult for staff to disapprove of the conduct of a superior without feeling that their jobs may thereby be in jeopardy.' It further stated that Simpson 'failed to properly consider whether the reason Ms. X felt that she was obliged to go along with his behaviour was to ensure that she retained her job, which she needed, and to be part of Mr. Simpson's 'inner circle.' Perhaps most important and relevant to the Andy Byron affair, the court said that a having a relationship with a subordinate exposes the employer to the risk of civil suits, and that it the job of senior employees to ensure an employer carries out its duties to its workers, shareholders and the public so that the company is protected. 'If the supervisor creates the problem,' the court said, 'he is in breach of that duty.' The suggestion that privacy concerns prevail is also inconsistent with the development of sexual harassment law in this country. Privacy rights are generally dramatically overstated: in other words, in general, privacy rights have little protection under our law and they fall to the wayside next to an employer's duty to stop and investigate potential harassment in their workplace. There is a common misconception that employers must find that a relationship lacked consent or that there was differential treatment before management can act. This assumes that the subordinate employee will come forward willingly, which, as noted above, may not occur. Employers are obliged to deal with potential harassment prior to any escalation by complaining employees. Of course, if policies are violated, such as one prohibiting superior-subordinate relationships, which I encourage employers to adopt — or at least policies requiring disclosure of such relationships — the case against the violator is clearer. But superior-subordinate relationships are always problematic, even in the absence of such policies. Howard Levitt: How the Coldplay concert affair would have played out in Canada Howard Levitt: Even the most desultory employee can find favour with the courts In short, in Canada, employers cannot view relationships between superiors and subordinates with equanimity, nor as private affairs. They must investigate from the standpoint that any such relationship may be inherently coercive and, in any event, damaging to the organization and come with substantial liability risks. Howard Levitt is senior partner of Levitt LLP, employment and labour lawyers with offices in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. He practices employment law in eight provinces and is the author of six books, including the Law of Dismissal in Canada.
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Lead investigator reveals what was found on Kohberger's phone
Idaho State Police lead investigator on the Bryan Kohberger case, Lt. Darin Gilbertson, sat down with CNN's Jean Casarez and shared details about what was found on Kohberger's phone during the investigation.
