How to deal with a cheque fraud in my Westpac (Australian Bank) account? I sold bitcoins worth of $9500 to a person who told me that he made cheque deposit to my account by using SMART ATM of Westpac bank. When I logged into my Westpac, it was showing that $9500 was pending. Normally Westpac shows every other deposits as pending at first and then eventually clears fund within 2/3 business days. So I released the bitcoins to that guy. Later, Bank manager called me and said they could not find the cheque anywhere in deposit machine and asked me to provide more information. I asked them if cheque was not found or validated, why would you show it in my transaction history. I have a screenshot of that as well. Later, I understood it was probably a cheque fraud. Was there any faults by Bank? I think the scammer actually fooled the bank machine? Can I claim my money back from Westpac or file a case against them?
You have been scammed - report this to the police. There is little to no chance this person will ever be found or that if they are that you will get your bitcoins back from them. On the plus side, for the bargain price of $9,500 you have learned never to trust a cheque until it is cleared. You do, however, have avenues with your bank. You can ask Westpac what redress they will make. You can make a formal complaint to their complaints department. You can then go to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Legally, I don't think you have a leg to stand on as your releasing goods on the basis of a pending cheque is your own idiocy, however, the bank may make some redress as a commercial decision to a loyal customer.
She could refer this to the Cyrpriot Commissioner for Personal Data Protection, but I would try contacting the company first and telling them to remove her Personal Data from the public website - or delete it completely. If they don't give a satisfactory response, mention the CPDP. This could lead to the data being removed within a few days, while an official complaint is likely to take longer. She may have grounds for legal action which would result in the company being compelled to take down the data (or to close the website), but if your friend is thinking in terms of compensation, what compensation would she seek? If she can demonstrate and quantify financial losses that occurred specifically because of this disclosure there might be a possibility, but I suspect that would be difficult to prove.
Online banks in the US are not legally special: they have to comply with the obligations of brick and mortar banks. I assume that this is actually a US bank, and not a Nigerian bank that you access from the US. However, there is no regulation that requires a bank to be able to handle mobile deposits. If the problem is just that you can't make online deposits, that is legally allowed. For example, my own bank did not have the facility for processing mobile deposits until a few years ago, and even now I have to use a smart phone to make such deposits (it is a traditional bank). The only way in which your situation would be legally problematic would be if your contract with the bank promises that you can make mobile deposits. You could reasonably argue that an 8 month delay in solving the problem was unreasonable. Presumably there is some benefit to maintaining this bank, one which you'd like to keep rather than closing the account and moving on. It might be something like &quot;if you close this account, we will claw back the interest that we paid&quot;. That is the point at which it might be worthwhile to talk to your lawyer about taking legal action.
Insurance fraud But not for the medical part of the form. Almost all procedures in Australia involve some type of insurance (Medicare, private, workers comp. etc.) - the notice is about the part of the form where you are authorizing payment.
If the situation described is accurate, then maybe First, let's deal with the implicit assumption that sales tax is not payable on gifts. Whether that is true or not depends on the law in your jurisdiction. For example, in australia there is no Goods and Services Tax (GST) payable on a gift because a gift is not a &quot;supply&quot; under the law. Technically, a value-added tax like the GST is not a sales tax but close enough. However, exchanging a &quot;gift&quot; for something of value (airline points, for example) is not a gift. Of course, Australian States and Territories levy Stamp Duty on the transfer of a vehicle's registration, and this is calculated on the sale price or the market price whichever is the greater. Also, technically, that's not a sales tax either. If it's a tax avoidance scheme, then no and it's a crime Assuming that there is no sales tax payable on a gift; if John and David entered into this arrangement (not a contract because of its illegal purpose) to avoid tax, then tax is payable and they are now criminals. If the relevant tax authority learns what happened and decides to investigate, then John and David might have some explaining to do. If David can show that he has routinely given John large cash gifts on John's birthday, then they may convince the authority not to prosecute. If they can't, then they get to try to convince a judge. It is not atypical for tax law to reverse the onus of proof: the government doesn't have to prove tax is payable, John and Dave have to prove it isn't.
This is fraud. The defrauded party can sue for damages. The state can prosecute: in NSW the penalty is up to 10 years jail (s192E Crimes Act 1900).
You would be amazed at how vanishingly few the number of cases are where a signature is disputed. Signatures are easy, quick and don't require you having inky fingers all the time. They are so useful that to throw them out to deal with infinintesimally small fractions of disputes over their veracity (bearing in mind that 99.999999999% of contracts never have a dispute that gets to a court [or at all]) is ridiculous. When it does happen, handwriting analysis is probably not going to be put into evidence anyway. Testimony like "I saw him sign it" is way more likely to be used.
There are some problems with this kind of vandalism, one of them clearly that the internet is international and vandalism can be performed from everywhere on servers everywhere in the world. And so it may be (both technically and legally) difficult to get hold of the vandal. Therefore, most wikis primarily focus on blocking offending accounts or their IPs and hope that this helps at least for a while. Only if it doesn't and the vandalism continues for extended time periods, legal measures are considered. Legally speaking though, vandalism is prohibited by many jurisdictions and of course by the terms of use of the wiki operators. For instance, the Swiss criminal code Art 147 explicitly puts &quot;abusing of data processing equipment&quot; under penalty and hence gives website operators a legal backup for setting up rules for the use of their services. Computer fraud Art. 147 1 Any person who with a view to his own or another's unlawful gain, by the incorrect, incomplete or unauthorised use of data, or in a similar way, influences the electronic or similar processing or transmission of data and as a result causes the transfer of financial assets, thus occasioning loss to another, or immediately thereafter conceals such a transfer shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding five years or to a monetary penalty. 2 If the offender acts for commercial gain, he shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding ten years or to a monetary penalty of not less than 90 daily penalty units. Technically, the law even requires prosecution ex officio, even though without a hint from the operator, the police won't start an investigation. I'm sure the US has a similar law. The problem is, as with all internet crimes, it's practical application, particularly because often website operator and offender are not living in the same country. Edit After reading the exact text again (it was unavailable yesterday) Art 147 is mostly about fraud performed by computers (classical &quot;hacking&quot;) but it shouldn't be difficult to argue that fighting and reverting vandalism requires significant (technical and personal) effort and hence the operator looses money. Additionally, there's Art 144bis which matches even better for the scenario here: Damage to data Art. 144bis Any person who without authority alters, deletes or renders unusable data that is stored or transmitted electronically or in some other similar way shall be liable on complaint to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty. If the offender has caused major damage, a custodial sentence of from one to five years may be imposed. The offence is prosecuted ex officio. Any person who manufactures, imports, markets, advertises, offers or otherwise makes accessible programs that he knows or must assume will be used for the purposes described in paragraph 1 above, or provides instructions on the manufacture of such programs shall be liable to a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or to a monetary penalty. If the offender acts for commercial gain, a custodial sentence of from one to five years may be imposed.