Top

This scam is just a simple confidence trick

This scam uses the impression of success and peer-to-peer pressure to con you into handing over your cash.

When I answered my front door, I found a nondescript woman in her late 20s. She was holding some paperwork. She was not smart enough to be selling (or mis-selling) electricity and gas – they all wear sharper clothing.

After a few polite words, she announced that she was about to go on a 5km sponsored walk. By the look of her, fifty metres might have been a stretch but I did not share that thought.

Naturally, I asked more. She told me that she is doing the walk for cancer – I assumed she meant cancer research or relief – and that she had already raised £3,900.

Alarm bells ring

The sum raised my eyebrows. I know plenty of people who have undertaken marathons, triathlons and 50km walks for charity. I have been on sponsored cycle rides – I do one every year for Leukaemia Research. I once managed over £2,500, but that involved a number of companies kindly backing me.

It would be tough raising £390, let alone £3,900 for what is really just a Sunday afternoon stroll in the park.

She was obviously eager not to waste time, and for me to sign her form. So I looked at it. It was a grubby photocopy headed not with a charity, but with NHS. Now I know the state health system has to make cutbacks but it is not in such dire straits that it is forced to do door-to-door sponsorship appeals.

Before I could say no, she said it would speed things up if I gave her the money there and then. She told me that all my neighbours had kindly agreed and had given her £10 or £20.

This was so obviously a scam – she would just keep the money (and the 5kms would be the door-to-door collecting!) - that I sent her on her way. But she would probably try neighbours with the same story.

Confidence tricks

This swindle relied on:

  • people being kindly disposed towards charity
  • the impression of success – the £3,900
  • peer-group pressure – my neighbours had (so she said) already agreed.

It was a confidence trick and, except in the amount, not far different from the Ponzi banking scheme which saw disgraced banker Allen Stanford convicted of fraud last week.

His Panama-based Stanford International Bank had ripped off £5 billion from an estimated 17,000 victims who have little chance of getting more than a few percentage points of their money back.

Aged 62, he was sentenced to 110 years in prison by a US court to ensure he spends the rest of his days behind bars even if he got time off for good behaviour. The prosecutor wanted 230 years, again an absurd number, but one that sends a message.

Like Bernie Madoff, Stanford operated a Ponzi scheme. He offered great returns on deposits and other investments but could only pay out those wanting a withdrawal with new money coming in. In common with all such plans, the fresh cash starts to dry up, everyone suddenly wants their money back and discovers that there is nothing in the kitty.

Like Madoff, Stanford led a high society life. Stanford's passion was cricket and he financed many a team and tournament, especially in the Caribbean, with his ill-gotten gains. He famously helicoptered into Lords with a case full of dollar bills, seeking to sign up English cricket stars for a 20-20 tournament in the West Indies. And infamously, he was pictured with some of the wives of the players sitting on his knee.

Who could believe that someone who both fraternised with, and patronised, the highest officials of a game renowned for fair play could be a crook?

He relied on the public being well disposed to sport, the impression of success, and peer-group pressure as he could list all manner of celebrities who had apparently done business with him. Other than a row of noughts, he was little different in the way he gained confidence from the woman at my door.

More on scams:

And the winner is... the scammer!

How your details end up in the hands of cold callers

Dodgy Thai emails

The Facebook scam

The sick solicitors that prey on the bereaved

Most Recent


Comments



  • 25 June 2012

    @electricblue I agree with you about the sparcity of current politicians holding real social values. Sorry, but I cannot agree about Diane Abbot; she says one thing about education, but does another when it comes to her own family ( a precedent set by Blair ? ) The Stranglers got it just about right; " no more heroes "

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 25 June 2012

    'People have benefits stopped and resorting to crime in order to eat' . Mike - you often utter total nonsense, but how about you give us one example where this has been used as a defence in legal proceedings or what part of your fantastic knowledge of society this gem comes from. Current health assessments for benefit stink and there have been unfair cases, but we all know people on benefit who shouldn't be and the government has, with the usual clumsiness that all governments have, tried to do something about it. People I know personally have had medical accidents in hospital and things have gone wrong, but I don't conclude that the NHS sets out to kill people.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

  • 24 June 2012

    @hopefultom I didn't assume anything about your politics but when you said 'this government' there was a clear implication that other governments had empathy. I find the current and recent Labour shower far more culpable than the Tories because I think the Tories have been mostly well meaning, but out of touch and incompetent because of their social class and personal experiences. Scum like Prescott and Blair knew full well what it meant to be working class and then proceeded to urinate on their origins throughout their careers. I'd be interested to know which politicians other posters think do hold real social values, I'm struggling to think of any myself who actually know the truth of normal family life in this country, although Diane Abbot sprang to mind as being particularly genuine. Too busy for car boot, I'm afraid. Day job and lousy weather make it a waste of time right now.

    REPORT This comment has been reported.
    0

Do you want to comment on this article? You need to be signed in for this feature

Most Popular

Copyright © lovemoney.com All rights reserved.

 

loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) with Firm Reference Number (FRN): 479153.

loveMONEY.com is a company registered in England & Wales (Company Number: 7406028) with its registered address at First Floor Ridgeland House, 15 Carfax, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1DY, United Kingdom. loveMONEY.com Limited operates under the trading name of loveMONEY.com Financial Services Limited. We operate as a credit broker for consumer credit and do not lend directly. Our company maintains relationships with various affiliates and lenders, which we may promote within our editorial content in emails and on featured partner pages through affiliate links. Please note, that we may receive commission payments from some of the product and service providers featured on our website. In line with Consumer Duty regulations, we assess our partners to ensure they offer fair value, are transparent, and cater to the needs of all customers, including vulnerable groups. We continuously review our practices to ensure compliance with these standards. While we make every effort to ensure the accuracy and currency of our editorial content, users should independently verify information with their chosen product or service provider. This can be done by reviewing the product landing page information and the terms and conditions associated with the product. If you are uncertain whether a product is suitable, we strongly recommend seeking advice from a regulated independent financial advisor before applying for the products.