Thank you for getting in touch Nicola, and I would like an answer.
Would it help if I increased my £18 to £25, which I am happy to do, given I have a legal specialist on recovering money lost through on-line fraud, who can answer my 3 questions.
23.57pm 7th August.
I have just had an email from Just Answer to increase my price (£25 from £18) further to £42?!
I am genuinely unsettled over this.
I have been a member for many years, and usually give far more than 10% 'tip', after the answer has been given - so I am surprised.....
I have followed your recommended prices - £18 being for low priority and speed, and now 3 days later it has certainly qualified on both accounts - yet I have increased it to £25?
Despite my feelings and in order to try and get the job done, I will increase to £30 - nearly double the agreed estimate Just Answer originally agreed.
I hope I will now have a suitably qualified and experience legal specialist to answer me now.
22.04pm 8th Aug.
Please go back to the expert who requested £42, to say I accept as an all in price - and I hope his answer therefore will be a sound one based on a strong expertise in this area of law, since he has requested the higher price!
Also, one further point re my 3 questions is that surely there is a duty by the bank when allowing a fraudster to open a trading bank a/c to check the validity of his company?
I ask this since my fraudster was a binary options online trading company, with a UK address and thus should have been registered with the Gambling Commission, but was NOT!
The FCA does not regulate such companies as yet, for reference.
23.42 9th Aug.
Hello my name is ***** ***** I will help you.
How are the bank at fault if you paid to frausters please? The bank didnt give you the details?
You advised me how I could lodge my own legal recovery of monies over my being a victim of fraud, in February of this year.
However, I did not pursue this since it was too complicated for me to lodge - and too expensive at the time for a lawyer, so I was hoping the bank would compensate me my monies, for the reasons I have given behind my current 3 - now 4 questions.
Am I correct that you are a litigation lawyer - but do you deal with fraud, and then online fraud cases with binary options trading platforms - or are experienced and have expertise in this area?
I ask since your reply does not address my 4 questions, but instead is a question to me of why I think the bank is at fault?
I have given the background context to my 4 questions precisely to clarify why I am asking the questions, whose answers will then determine whether my belief is correct or not that the bank are at fault for not compensating me.
This is why I needed a specialist in this area - even a barrister if necessary- as in my original remit, since my case highlights financial investment/gambling business's being allowed to operate in the UK without being regulated (FCA) or registered (GC), and defrauding the unsuspecting public at large.
I am a retired independent financial investment adviser, yet was deceived.
However, the banks are fully cogniscant of, and I am advised, have whole dept's to defend them from victims claims, despite having indemnity cover......
They have a duty of care, as well as adhering to a regulatory compliance structure for their clients, so why are fraudsters business not checked when banks open an account for these criminals (re regulation/registration, given they give a UK address) - as the start?
What protocol under their regulatory framework do banks have to fulfill to DEMONSTRATE that they have tried to recover all monies, when notified by the victim or though the original fraud/police notification by the victim?
Again a specialist will know exactly why these points/queries I raise are relevant from a legal perspective, since - now having the experience of being a victim of fraud - it is morally unjust to have the layman to bring down the fraudsters as currently is the case - the police since 2007 change in the law, no longer need to have financial fraud cases reported - only to the bank. Action Fraud and the NFIB do not pursue individual cases, and so it goes on .......
The public have been utterly let down, and indeed the Police Commissioner when I spoke to him over my case, lamented that he whole heartedly agreed with my findings, which was sadly the current state of affairs with all fraud cases which is the No1 criminal activity in the UK, and he has taken up month after month with the Home Secretary.......
I could go on. Thus, does this make sense - what I say - and is this your subject?
16.58 pm 11-8-16
I am a barrister and I regularly deal with fraud cases.
Please can you tell me on what basis you consider the bank liable?
Good to note you are an expert on fraud - I assume in the UK?
I believe the bank are liable, based on these points which I have already made in my original enquiry through the context given to my 4 questions, namely:-
I'm very sorry but they are just simply not liable to replace your money.
This was a scam by a fraudster. The fraudster is liable not the bank.
Unless the bank's security measures failed in some way there is no claim. Even then it would only be negligent rather than fraud.
I'm very sorry.
Can I clarify anything for you?
Thank you for your statement that the bank are not liable, however I would like you to clarify this with respect to my 4 questions?
To repeat again:-
You never replied to my last message below dated 18th August 13.04?
Please would you ask a moderator - soonest - to find someone else, since I need my questions answered - still.
Mark 22nd August 22.00pm
I'm not really sure there is very much I can add.
You are trying to make the bank liable for your misfortune. They are just plain not.
Whether they have not complied or not is a non issue from that point of view.
You can complain to the FSA but that doesn't take you any further forward from the point of view of making them liable for your loss.
Thank you, ***** ***** do not seem to able to get through to you - so consequently, please would you opt out of my questions asked.
For your reference - in order to help other questioners - you did not SPECIFICALLY answer - given cold-calling is an illegal act, is it LEGALLY true that any SUBSEQUENT transaction BASED on the illegal act is Null and Void?
This seems a perfectly fair question for a lay person to ask a lawyer........
This is why I need another lawyer after repeatedly asking you to answer MY questions.
I now await a new legal specialist therefore, and am sorry we do not seem able to understand each other.
16.30pm 23rd August
Ok. Good luck with this.
Thank you, ***** ***** for you.