Monday , July 15 2019
Home / Adam Smith Institute / This might be harsh but perhaps there shouldn’t be a funding stream for this

This might be harsh but perhaps there shouldn’t be a funding stream for this

Summary:
We wouldn’t say that this is an entirely and fully baked suggestion. Rather that this is something that does need to be thought about. If we create a dedicated fund, funding stream, to compensate for a certain form of criminal activity, aren’t we then reducing the pressure to reduce this form of criminal activity? Banks are lobbying to introduce charges on the vast majority of money transfers to fund payouts for fraud victims, Telegraph Money understands.The industry has agreed that victims of bank transfer fraud who did nothing to put themselves at risk should get their money back. It is now under pressure to agree where this money will come from.This week it emerged that the number of reported cases of bank transfer fraud, where someone is tricked into authorising a payment to criminals,

Topics:
Tim Worstall considers the following as important:

This could be interesting, too:

David Stockman writes Japan’s Old Age Colony: A Demographic/Fiscal Death Trap

Mises Institute writes Welcome and Opening Remarks

Daisy Luther writes What To Do If It’s Too Late

No Author writes Texas Takes Another Pro-Gold Step

We wouldn’t say that this is an entirely and fully baked suggestion. Rather that this is something that does need to be thought about. If we create a dedicated fund, funding stream, to compensate for a certain form of criminal activity, aren’t we then reducing the pressure to reduce this form of criminal activity?

Banks are lobbying to introduce charges on the vast majority of money transfers to fund payouts for fraud victims, Telegraph Money understands.

The industry has agreed that victims of bank transfer fraud who did nothing to put themselves at risk should get their money back. It is now under pressure to agree where this money will come from.

This week it emerged that the number of reported cases of bank transfer fraud, where someone is tricked into authorising a payment to criminals, has almost doubled in a year, from 43,875 to 84,624, according to the banking trade body, UK Finance. In total £354m was stolen but banks returned only £83m to victims.

If the banks must compensate from shareholder funds then that will put a certain pressure on the bank and management systems to reduce this form of crime. If there’s a funding scheme, that flow of funds from each and every transfer, then that pressure will be reduced. The banks won’t have skin in the game in reducing the instances of the fraud. Their profits are unaffected by the scale of crime.

Is that what we really want? Those best able to limit the thieving having no economic pressure to reduce it? It’s not entirely obvious that it is, is it?


Tim Worstall
Tim Worstall is a British-born writer and Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute. Worstall is a regular contributor to Forbes and the Register. He has also written for the Guardian, the New York Times, PandoDaily, the Daily Telegraph blogs, the Times, and The Wall Street Journal. In 2010 his blog was listed as one of the top 100 UK political blogs by Total Politics.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *