I was recently contacted from a paralegal that i was being charged with fraud. It was from an "online" loan company that deposited money in my bank account that I had closed. I have asked for a copy of the transaction to see where i gave them permission to do this,but,they say that they are not allowed to "mail" anythig because it is an "online" loan company. Where do I stand on this??
Oh, and I echo what excon said-DO NOT sign anything or admit to any guilt. They have the burden of proof, so signing or admiting anything is akin to admitting guilt!! Next time they call, tell them tht the call is being reorded (even if it's not)......hey, they're lying to you, so one litle fib on your end can't hurt, especially since they're basically trying to extort money from you!!
You might want to cantact your bank and have it "flagged"-so that any odd or out of state/country transactions can be denied without your express approval.
Do an IP check on the email headers, which could give you a clue as to the country at least of where these emails are coming from. If you don't mind, post them here and we can help you. If you don't know how to get email headers, PM me or google it or just PM me their original email address and I will scam tham myself to ge tthe dirt on them.
Judy is absoluely right, they will try anything possible to get you to give up your banking ino, SSN, what bank you use, your address. ANYTHING!!
Oh, and I echo what excon said-DO NOT sign anything or admit to any guilt. They have the burden of proof, so signing or admiting anything is akin to admitting guilt!! Next time they call, tell them tht the call is being reorded (even if it's not)......hey, they're lying to you, so one litle fib on your end can't hurt, especially since they're basically trying to extort money from you!!!!
Telling someone you are recording the conversation is NOT a good idea UNLESS you are in a State where this is legal.
I am concerned about advice on a legal board which consists of "they lie to you so lie back to them."
As long as you say "I am recording this conversation" it is legal. Some states you don't have to say that the call is being recorded, as long as one party knows then it's fine (if you know you're recording the call, then you are qualified as the one party that knows!!)
Butt you're right, it's not too cool to fib but in some cases it's harmless and can help. I don't think telling someone that the call is being recorded is really considered a detrimental lie that would hurt anyone. It was just ment to scare off the scammer. I'll change my advice then, get a recording device and then it'll be the truth, but find out the law in your state first. Although I have never heard of a state that bans recording calls completely. Some states require notice to all parties, some require no notice to anyone and some require that at least one party knows (you!!).
(if you know you're recording the call, then you are qualified as the one party that knows!!)
IF it is illegal in your state to record calls then that doesn't make sense to be the only one that knows you are recording the call and it would not even be taken as evidence in court.
it is permissible to intercept and record a telephone conversation if one or both of the parties to the call consents. Consent means authorization by only one participant in the call; single-party consent is provided for by specific statutory exemption under federal law. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d).
As you will notice, most say exactly what I said, that ONE party has to know. And that one party can be YOU, the recorder. Only 12 out of 50 states do not allow taping with only one party's consent.
unlawful eavesdropping, criminal surveillance, and divulging information obtained through these methods are misdemeanors carrying a maximum jail sentence of one year. Ala. Code § 13A-1-2.
The eavesdropping statute criminalizes the use of “any device” to overhear or record communications, whether the eavesdropper is present or not, without the consent of at least one party engaged in the communication. Ala. Code § 13A-11-31. A person also cannot knowingly or recklessly divulge information obtained through illegal eavesdropping. Ala. Code § 13A-11-35.
A violation of the statute occurs when there is (1) a willful interception, (2) of oral communications uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication would be in private, (3) and communication is made under circumstances justifying an expectation of privacy
-------------
The crime of “interfering with communication” involves knowingly and unlawfully tapping any connection that belongs to another without consent of the person owning, possessing, or controlling the property.
***Basically this is what it says for states its illegal in.
I am too tired to figure it out right now.
be back in the a.m. to see if I can make sense of it or if somebody beat me to it.
unlawful eavesdropping, criminal surveillance, and divulging information obtained through these methods are misdemeanors carrying a maximum jail sentence of one year. Ala. Code § 13A-1-2.
The eavesdropping statute criminalizes the use of “any device” to overhear or record communications, whether the eavesdropper is present or not, without the consent of at least one party engaged in the communication. Ala. Code § 13A-11-31. A person also cannot knowingly or recklessly divulge information obtained through illegal eavesdropping. Ala. Code § 13A-11-35.
A violation of the statute occurs when there is (1) a willful interception, (2) of oral communications uttered by a person exhibiting an expectation that the communication would be in private, (3) and communication is made under circumstances justifying an expectation of privacy
-------------
The crime of “interfering with communication” involves knowingly and unlawfully tapping any connection that belongs to another without consent of the person owning, possessing, or controlling the property.
***Basically this is what it says for states its illegal in.
I am too tired to figure it out right now.
be back in the a.m. to see if I can make sense of it or if somebody beat me to it.
From some of the states she got from here [left her interpretation in with the link]
Quote:
Originally Posted by passmeby
Federal Law:
it is permissible to intercept and record a telephone conversation if one or both of the parties to the call consents. Consent means authorization by only one participant in the call; single-party consent is provided for by specific statutory exemption under federal law. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d).
As you will notice, most say exactly what I said, that ONE party has to know. And that one party can be YOU, the recorder. Only 12 out of 50 states do not allow taping with only one party's consent.
No, Judy, you are the one who starts things with me. And yes, we play this game a lot, and I always win!!
I respectfully suggest that someone take a closer look at your various medications, which medications you have freely and openly discussed in the past, because you are either bipolar or addicted.
It's unfortunate that you see your very incorrect legal advice in terms of winning and losing and sad that you think you are the winner in any of this. You have been told time and time again - and here's one - "I will agree with the others, passmeby, you seem to embarrass yourself with wrong answers on a continious basis. The problem with accidents is that there really is no "accident" someone though fault or neglect is the cause. Often both parties have some level of neglect." that you are wrong and embarrassing yourself - and yet you keep on arguing. http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/small-c...-376543-2.html
You are rude and disrespectful, particularly to our resident insurance expert, and you've been brought to task on that, too.
Linear Mode
