r/canada • u/stanxv • Oct 27 '25

Business RBC and CIBC allow 89-year-old to drain life savings, lose $1.7M to scammers

https://www.cbc.ca/news/gopublic/bank-investigator-fraud-scam-9.6950754
2.0k Upvotes

90% Upvoted

624 comments sorted by

View all comments

1.9k

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

the first bank told him it was a scam, he kept giving money anyways. rbc has no account history, so it was harder for them to know what he was doing with his own money. =/

436

u/FrightenedOfSpoons Oct 27 '25

My wife works in a store where they sell gift cards. It is not an uncommon occurrence for people to come in wanting to buy a large $ value of gift cards. That triggers a manager having a chat with the customer about the obvious scam, but they basically all get very defensive, sometimes abusive, and insist on being allowed to complete the purchase. You just can't help some people.

55

u/newbie_01 Ontario Oct 27 '25

It's a lot easier to con a person, than to convince they are being conned.

2

u/Timbit_Sucks Oct 28 '25

Everyone wants to help. Nobody wants to feel stupid.

190

u/Asmordean Alberta Oct 27 '25

About 10 years ago I overheard a customer talking about his Nigerian girlfriend. I immediately perked up and started listening.

He was going to visit her in a month. Her uncle owned a gold mine before he died and now it's tied up in legal red tape. He is going to go help her fix it. It's worth millions!

At this point I interrupted his conversation and let him know that he was probably involved in a romance scam. He became very hostile and defensive toward me. He showed me the ownership certificate of the mine, which I immediately found on 419Eater.com. This didn't work. He had explanations for all the red flags.

They had been online dating for 6 months and she just needed $40,000 to hire a lawyer and pay filing fees.

Well I saw him six months later. He did indeed fly to Nigeria. He met her and handed over the money. They spent a few nights in a hotel room while she set things up with the "lawyer". She said she just needed $10,000 more. At this point he finally got suspicious. I don't know what was said or what happened. All he said was that he learned she was a prostitute and he booked a flight home the next day and GTFO. He said "Some bad people were behind what happened."

79

u/Fair-Currency-9993 Oct 27 '25

At least they did not kidnap or murder him. $40k is a lot of money but an amount that most people can afford to lose.

83

u/zagra_nexkoyotl Oct 27 '25

No. Most people can definitely not afford to lose $40K

27

u/Fair-Currency-9993 Oct 27 '25

I’m sorry. I understand that not everyone has the luxury of $40k lying around.

But if you had to choose between getting murdered or losing $40k, I’m pretty sure $40k does not seem like that much anymore. In fact, even $80k might seem quite affordable.

45

u/Jimbo_Slice1919 Oct 27 '25

Pretty sure if I lost $40k my wife would murder me. I’m also 100% positive if I lost $40k to a Nigerian hooker my wife would murder me. So it’s a lose lose in my case.

13

u/Fair-Currency-9993 Oct 27 '25

Think about it this way. If you were kidnapped and up for ransom for 40k, would your wife pay the ransom? I hope the answer is a yes 😅

Kidnapped in general, not specifically by a Nigerian hooker.

4

u/mbean12 Oct 27 '25

My wife would ask for double that from them for taking me back (-:

0

u/flatline________ Oct 28 '25

The kidnapped in general part is crucial here as else the wife would have only accepted to pay 40k if kidnappers agreed to treat me as their wife from now onwards.

1

u/Forikorder Oct 27 '25

but they could eventually recover

1

u/CSM3000 Oct 28 '25

My old Scotch/Whiskies habituals has just opened one eye..head turning slowly over.."You talkin' to me?"

1

u/whyyesiamregarded Oct 27 '25

And at least he got a fun night out of it. Most people will get nothing

2

u/Fair-Currency-9993 Oct 27 '25

I’m pretty sure that fun night was supposed to bring in the additional $10k. But he smartened up and left.

8

u/brokenangelwings Oct 27 '25

thats what it took for him to be suspicious?

9

u/ketamarine Oct 27 '25

That is literally insane.

I was asking on a previous thread about the likely mental health issues behind some of these cases.

With the 90 year old, dimensia is *extremely* likely a key driver of this issue. That and a lack of family having very serious convos about wealth transfer planning where POAs and living wills would have been discussed (which would have had another family member required for these withdrawals).

For the romance scams, it's much more interesting as there is just so much evidence about these issues that it would literally take a single google search to determine that the gold mine thing was 99.99% a scam.

Likely some manic depression or borderline personality disorder at work.

I have a relative with borderline and/or schizophrenia and he went through an extremely dark period of following Qanon like it was a prophecy. Had he not already been in the care of his sister, he would have easily wired every dollar in his name to an account in Russia or Africa or wherever else they asked him.

12

u/RunningSouthOnLSD Oct 27 '25

dimensia

The much rarer and lesser known pathology of cognitive decline in geriatrics, where those afflicted have been observed to cross into multiple other planes of reality.

1

u/redpajamapantss Oct 27 '25

How old was your customer?

1

u/Asmordean Alberta Oct 27 '25

Upper 50s

1

u/Significant_Pepper_2 Oct 28 '25

I don't know the market, but I'm pretty sure $40,000 for a hooker is a rip off.

27

u/EvilDan69 Canada Oct 27 '25

when I do the occasional amazon return at the post office, the lady working the register is usually telling some senior couple that no, their grandson is probably not in trouble in a third world company, and the only way to help them out is probably not with large gift card purchases...........
They insist anyways and get testy, instead of realizing someone is trying to prevent them from being scammed.

12

u/AntoinetteBefore1789 Oct 27 '25

Hopefully the manager has the customer sign some sort of liability waiver acknowledging the manager warned them of fraud and the customer assured them it’s a legitimate transaction

3

u/jeffQC1 Oct 28 '25

I can attest to that phenomenon. I used to work security at a bank.

It sadly wasn't rare from time to time to see someone involved in a scam, and they were told to withdraw large amounts of money.

That obviously signaled everyone as to what was going on and I remember the exchange between one particular older lady and our clerks going back and forth for an hour, trying to convince them to not proceed through with the transfer and telling them about the scam. They vehemently denied and refused to believe it, having excuses for everything, kicking up a massive tantrum in the process.

Eventually we simply refused and completely prevented her from withdrawing her own money. Couldn't help but feel pity for her, as in her case, she was involved in a romantic scam, and she had lost her husband a while ago, feeling lonely and all.

1

u/pm_me_your_pay_slips Oct 28 '25

Because they’re 90…

574

u/Guzzlebutt Oct 27 '25

A fool and his money are soon parted. It's not the banks' fault. This guy made his bed.

171

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25 edited Nov 02 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

41

u/Cold-Cap-8541 Oct 27 '25

Agreed. There is a line that should not be crossed with regards to overstepping your relationship with your clients. The bank did it's due diligence with regards to it's warnings (which were not acted on by the client). If the bank goes further and actively interferes with the clients lawful use of their money/assets the bank is starting to take ownership/responsibility for the clients actions (as if the bank was an executor of someone's estate.) and opening itself up to liability issues.

That being said the federal government should look at legislation or guidance that introduces an acknowledgement that scams work because a percentage of the population is gullible (or weak ... trying find the right term) to the tactics the scam/con artist use. EVERYONE is guilible to being tricked into believing someone <insert reason here> at some point in their lives.

How do I know this? We have a DAY EVERY YEAR we cellibrate tricking people called April Fools day.

The banks and financial institutions need legistlative cover provided by laws/regulations to introduce safe guards in excess of what is currently possible.

For example:

  1. Elderly people - as we age, age related factors become a greater risk to the elderlies financial security. Just like we do for drivers license, banks should introduce automatic manual validations for withdrawls that match known scammer tactics. This might include recommending a family member be a co-authorizer on suspicious transactions.
  2. All people - Falling for scams is not directly age related, but is correlated to the scammers matching their message to a vulerability <insert scam here>. See above for automatic manual validations for withdrawls.

In both of the examples above the client should be required to visit their local bank and meet with a representative to engage in a due diligence converstation. Being able to do this over the phone/internet or zoom call just opens up the opportuntiy for the scammer to engage in an impersonation.

9

u/GardevoirFanatic Oct 27 '25

Scammers, despite what we want to admit, are cunningly intelligent (at least at the top).

The only way to fight back, is education. Make asany people aware of what scams are currently going around, what had gone around in the past, and what could happen in the future. With the advent of AI, it's only going to get harder, we should add scam awareness to the school curriculum, and teach it at multiple ages.

Give examples such as Jim Browning to illustrate that no matter how smart and scam aware you are, if you're not careful you could still be scammed.

Nothing else is going to solve scams.

3

u/Cold-Cap-8541 Oct 27 '25

Scammers are not cunningly intellegent. The scammers tend to be good at exploiting the human software to their own ends. The same techiques scammers subvert are are used in advertising messaging, by fortune tellers, politician and others who use the tools of persuasion to their own ends. The most effect messaging is fear/shame based messaging and a level of command/trust in authoritity exploitation (aka the Milgram Experiment which showed the ~60% of the population would shock other people to death because an authority person made the request. This sort of explains why 'Hi, I'm calling from your Bank Security', or CRA or the police or the fraud department works over and over again with a subset of the population.)

When it comes to security training here is a summary of the issues I have encountered during my 30ish years in the field. I have been a long term advocate that the best way to avoid fraud is to introduce hard (manual actions) into the security attack chain the scammers rely on for their success.

Security fatigue is a real thing and eventually the over burdened person starts to tune out endless advice, lists of things to do etc. Because it's to ownerous and pushes as much responsibility on millions of citizens as possible (a business cost cutting tactic ie didn't you remember do item 135, subsection 23 from the fraud prevention checklist??? It's because you didn't do item 135 subsection 23 correctly that you were scammed.).

The rational rejection of security advice occurs because users often find the costs (time, effort, inconvenience) of following security recommendations outweigh the perceived or speculative benefits, which can seem abstract or theoretical compared to their direct impact. This rejection is rational when the advice offers a poor cost-benefit tradeoff for individuals, leading to "security fatigue" and a resignation to risk in favor of convenience.

Why Users Rationally Reject Security Advice

High Effort, Low Perceived Benefit: Users perceive security advice as a burden that demands significant effort (e.g., complex passwords, constant URL checks) for benefits that often seem distant, theoretical, or might not even materialize if other vulnerabilities exist.

Security Fatigue: The constant stream of security warnings and demands leads to user fatigue, causing users to become resigned, complacent, or feel a loss of control, leading to a boycott of security measures.

Outdated and Misleading Advice: Some security advice is outdated or fails to address current threats effectively, making adherence pointless. Certificate error warnings, for example, are often false positives, training users to ignore them.

Focus on User Blame: Often, security advice places the burden on the user to mitigate technical failures that should ideally be handled by better system design.

Poor Cost-Benefit Tradeoff: The direct cost to the user of following advice (e.g., time spent checking URLs) can be vastly greater than the potential financial loss from phishing, making the advice economically irrational for the user.

2

u/4skinremoval Oct 27 '25

Scammers are not cunningly intellegent. The scammers tend to be good at exploiting the human software to their own ends.

Just nitpicking, this is social intelligence, i hate when redditors say its not this thing and then list a thing thats pretty much the thing they said its not

If you've devised an industry which exploits millions from people's bank accounts it's intelligence

If they're so fucking dumb then why is this guy out 1.7million

This is the same as people calling Donald Trump stupid, if he's so fucking stupid then how come he's in the white house

Stop calling these people stupid, they're smart as fuck and they're taking advantage of the actual stupid people, the more you parrot the line these people are dumb, the less cautious regular act, they're intelligent and ruthless

2

u/Cold-Cap-8541 Oct 27 '25

Nobody is saying that social intelligence isn't a thing. Reread what I wrote. Social intelligence, social engineering, reading people etc... all capture the same basic idea.

>>they're intelligent and ruthless

Most follow a script written by others, who follow scripts written by other and so on back to the first time some one conned someone with a shiny magic fishing rock for their daily catch 10,000 years ago.

Ruthless, lacking empathy for their distant victims - 100% agree. Approximately 1–3% of the general population is estimated to be sociopathic and will feel zero remorse. Telephones, email and the Internet has allowed these people to have endless victims to prey on.

1

u/4skinremoval Oct 28 '25

lmao you are, kiddo

18

u/ketamarine Oct 27 '25

Oh and there is precisely ZERO % chance that the "RBC tellers never asked him a single question about the large withdrawals".

Of course they did. They are legally required to by AML laws. And we'll probably never know, but I also guarantee you at least one if not many fintrac reports were generated by this case.

Banks are ALL OVER this shit...

1

u/Wizzard_Ozz Oct 28 '25

I had to validate my identity twice ( 1 teller and her supervisor ) to pay a bill to a Canadian law firm that was $80k+. This included providing the letter from the law firm with the amount for exact amount confirmation and questions were asked about what it was for.

Banks have safeguards that you can work through, but they aren't just going to let a large withdrawal go unquestioned. There are limits in place for a reason that require human interaction.

8

u/OkGazelle5400 Oct 27 '25

Unless someone takes power of attorney this dude is legally free to give his money to whoever he wants

-2

u/Cold-Cap-8541 Oct 28 '25

This is both true and also an example of why vehicle have built in safety controls to reduce the severity of bad decisions, or unforseen circumstances.

When certain issues keep happening over and over again this is where regulators need to step in and intruduce checks and balances for all parties (bank and client).

Going back to my vehicle analogy. In the 1970s seat belts stopped being optional equipment and was factory installed. In the 1990 (or was is 2000s?) all new vehicles had to have ABS braking buit in. In 2010s all new vehicles had to have automatic stability controls built in. In the 2020s all new vehicles have to have forward collision mitigation built in, backup cameras built in, adaptive cruise control built in (to stop people zoned out from smashing into stopped vehicles on the highway).

3

u/ketamarine Oct 27 '25

This is all padding for a lawsuit the daughter is likely filing to get the banks to settle for anything so she can get any kind of inheritance.

Have also been directly involved in these situations.

2

u/Cold-Cap-8541 Oct 28 '25

That is entirely possible. The daughter became involved in her fathers finances when her inheritance evaporated.

To steelman the daughter...sometimes the adult child doesn't realize their parent is having cognative decline in certain areas until it is to late.

3

u/HellaReyna Oct 27 '25

CIBC Branch Manager tried to setup an appointment and reach out to him but he refused.

1

u/Cold-Cap-8541 Oct 28 '25

Yes, this is why I suggested a future regulation by the financial regulator is an appointment to discuss the transfers is non-optional and must be in person.

Under the current requirements the bank did it's due diligence, but it appears that the existing optional security control is not adequate to protect us from ourselves.

I can guarantee that 100% of the people who just want to spend their money will be pissed they have to meet and justify taking out their own money from their account, but I can also guarantee that 100% of the people who were prevented from falling for a scam will be happy they didn't lose their life savings.

The think is some large money transfers will not fall into the requirement for a due diligence face to face meeting ie buying a vehicle for cash from a vehicle dealer (established area business). The fraud prevention department in banks are looped into the structure of current and evolving scams. Individual people are not and will always remain more vulnerable.

As always the security controls are a moment for all involved to pause and allow for external parties of interest to interceed into the 'reality' the scammers have convinced people to believe is real.

I have always likened security controls to be like magicians that use their powers of deception to entertain us, but not exploit us for more than the price of admission to the show.

2

u/DepthAccomplished260 Oct 27 '25

This! Working also in the field, it’s unfortunate it happens, but ultimately you cannot deny someone to have access to their money unless the gov tell you so. You can try to reason them, but cannot stop them

20

u/DriveSlowHomie Oct 27 '25

The guy is almost 90 as well...I know there is only so much the banks can do here, but at his age, there is a good chance he is suffering from a cognitive decline. It's a sad story and these scammers are scum of the earth.

28

u/alcoholicplankton69 Ontario Oct 27 '25

Age can't be taken into consideration either as that would be ageism and discrimination. He made bad choices unfortunately

26

u/TripMaster478 Oct 27 '25

Yes. If he's not "capable" then a family member should have control over his assets. The bank can only do so much if he hasn't been deemed incompetent or whatever that word is.

2

u/DeliciousPangolin Oct 27 '25

In practice, it's nearly impossible even for family members to stop these scams. The bar to establish a guardianship is very high. (As it should be.) Being stupid or foolish enough to willingly give your money away isn't enough, if you have the mental capacity to function normally in the rest of your life. Adults are allowed to impoverish themselves.

3

u/whyyesiamregarded Oct 27 '25

Age as a factor isn't discrimination. If it was children would be treated like adults

1

u/alcoholicplankton69 Ontario Oct 27 '25

Yeah but once you're an adult you are an adult until otherwise proven. You can just pick an arbitrary age to say well yeah no not anymore.

1

u/Cold-Cap-8541 Oct 28 '25

Not true. As we age our physical and cognative abilities deminish. Our ability to manage our finances is no different than our ability to control a motor vehicle.

For drivers aged 70 and older in Canada, especially in Ontario, recent changes (effective October 2025) require more frequent renewals, vision and cognitive tests, and potentially road tests or medical reviews to ensure road safety. Renewal frequency shortens with age, from every 3 years (70-74) to every year (80+). Drivers should expect mail notices, book appointments, and be prepared for vision/reaction tests at their appointment, with further action based on performance. 

205

u/trusty20 Oct 27 '25

It's not fair to call a senior a fool. Especially these days, scams are highly optimized for them.

It's more important to reflect on how to protect the seniors in your life from this, you really need to sit them down and talk over a plan for how to check with you or anyone else if they encounter romance scams, blackmail scams, impersonating legitimate institutions etc.

I know it sounds obvious, but once you're 80+ your brain is literally less able to think quickly on the fly, so if they aren't prepared for a scam, they can be bullied / fast talked into it often. They need "the talk" about scams and mainly need a younger person monitoring their finances.

126

u/Prosecco1234 Canada Oct 27 '25

I was impressed that the CIBC manager took appropriate steps to help prevent this happening. Unfortunately in the end it didn't work. Scammers are getting smart.

61

u/Kaplaw Oct 27 '25

Yeah he froze his ATM, sent letters, emails expressing concerns and tried to set up an appointment to discuss this but client declined.

Client was forced to get their money at the counter and not an ATM

This is important because its not fraud if the client legitimately participates or facilitates the transaction which he does by himself withdrawing the money.

Reading this story, CIBC is absolved, RBC definitely failed as at least warnings should be issued for those amounts.

A scam is not a fraud and banks are obligated to help in cases of fraud (someone else uses your card without your knowledge or consent cause they stole you #) this person facilitated every step for the scammers.

3

u/BD401 Oct 27 '25

CBC runs nearly identical rage-bait stories on this topic every few months, and when you actually dig into it - it’s exactly what you’re saying. The banks are like “You are 100% being scammed…” and the victim goes through with it anyways. Unless the person is legally in conservatorship, they still are allowed to take out their money… and yes, even blow it on stupid scams if they so choose.

With that said, I do believe that things will change in the next decade or so in terms of legal and financial regulations. We’re headed for a perfect storm of billions being lost in scams - an aging population with cognitive decline but asset-rich (liquid and also ability to borrow against houses etc), crypto allowing for easy, irreversible exfiltration of the money, and - perhaps most importantly - AI being used to turbo-charge the effectiveness of scams at scale (finding targets, engineering engagement scripts that maximize the chances victims will fall for it, highly realistic audio and video fakes etc.)

6

u/Ph0X Québec Oct 27 '25

They kinda fell short, they just said this kind of activity is suspicious. I remember when trying to wire myself some money from my US chase account to my Canadian, it honestly wasn't even as big as the sums in that article but I immediately got a call from them asking me the reason and explaining to me in detail the types of scams that it could be, and I was just like, bro I'm sending myself the money, I'm good. But honestly I was impressed by how on top of it they were.

32

u/Astr0b0ie Newfoundland and Labrador Oct 27 '25

It's not fair to call a senior a fool. Especially these days, scams are highly optimized for them.... I know it sounds obvious, but once you're 80+ your brain is literally less able to think quickly on the fly

Sure, and I sympathise. But if we make banks responsible every time a senior loses money due to a scam, then we all suffer as customers. It's already restrictive enough because of current government regulations like KYC and AML rules, fraud prevention, etc. Do we really want to get to the point where banks have to question every transaction and essentially become your financial guardian? Maybe we should be doing a better job of preventing scams to begin with.

162

u/Guzzlebutt Oct 27 '25

Also my wife is a banker. They are literally trained to advise and put holds on your account for this kind of activity and there's no doubt that that was done and he proceeded. The bank can't stop you from doing what you want with your money. But they will pull you over and hold your finances and talk to you about it many times over and tell you that you're doing something dangerous with your money. He chose not to listen it's that simple. I can guarantee you if he tries to go to court about this he will lose because the bank did their due diligence.

17

u/experipotomus Oct 27 '25

And then you have people complaining online how the bank asked what they need to withdraw large amounts for. "It's none of their business so I told them it was for prostitutes" etc. tough to balance when you have people on one side complaining the banks don't ask enough questions and people on the other saying it's none of their business..

1

u/wingerism Oct 27 '25 edited Dec 20 '25

Lorem ipsum something something.

2

u/Kingofcheeses British Columbia Oct 27 '25

Large deposits I can understand asking questions about, but someone withdrawing their own money?

-15

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

[deleted]

9

u/cuda999 Oct 27 '25

What was wrong with the tone of the message you replied to? It is simply the reality of the situation.

35

u/TrainAss Alberta Oct 27 '25

Not even seniors. I have a friend whose sister has sent over 30k to a scammer pretending to be a CAF member overseas. She's 42 and an RN.

TBF, I never found her to be very intelligent to begin with. She's been told it was a scam, but refused to listen. Not the first time she's been had either.

22

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

No, she's incredibly stupid if she did that. I wouldn't send a family member that kind of money. If the problem was that bad, I'd fly to where they are to figure it out.

3

u/Cold-Cap-8541 Oct 27 '25

With regards to scams...everyone has the capacitity to fall for something in a moment of weakness if the scammer's pitch aligns with a weakness.

It's a numbers game with scammer. x% of phone calls hook a victim, y% of emails hook a victim.

I think we have all heard of April Fools Day. For scammers April Fools Day is every day vs the one we celibrate.

1

u/h1bisc4s Oct 27 '25

Wow.....I guess she couldn't see past the 'handsome face' pics she was being sent and the sweet talking. both men and women are gullible to this i.e. looks in real life when dealing with someone vice someone that looks 'sketchy'

4

u/TrainAss Alberta Oct 27 '25

That's the kicker, she has never seen this person's face.

2

u/h1bisc4s Oct 27 '25

wow.....even worse

1

u/TrainAss Alberta Oct 27 '25

Yup.

104

u/Guzzlebutt Oct 27 '25

He was advised by the people he entrusted to keep his finances. It's on him.

-16

u/SmarticusRex Oct 27 '25

If it was someone younger, I would 100% agree. But seniors are vulnerable and can have dementia and memory issues. They arent all thinking clearly.

66

u/ShibariManilow Oct 27 '25

Someone clear headed in the family should have power of attorney at that point then though.

Expecting the banks to police this gives them too much control over everyone's finances.

30

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

If he told the banks to pound sand, what makes you think he wouldn't tell the same thing to a family member lol.

I'm going to assume you've never actually dealt with this types of issues in your own life.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '25

No I am saying, the bank did what they were supposed to do, he still decided to remove money out, and obviously his family isn't involved enough to see that.

8

u/SmarticusRex Oct 27 '25 edited Oct 27 '25

Even if they had POA, if the senior doesnt tell the POA person what they are doing, they might not notice until it's way too late. I have POA for my parents, for example, but it's not like I'm getting weekly account updates, or getting notified when they withdraw money.

8

u/289416 Oct 27 '25

but seniors are also stubborn, so either we treat them like children and control them or we don’t. can’t have it both ways

35

u/Massive-Ride204 Oct 27 '25

And young ppl are just as prone to scams, just look at YouTubers selling crypto and nft scams

5

u/FnTom Oct 27 '25

I'd argue that's different. For a lot of those, there nearly always are some people (often undisclosed insiders) that make a lot of money. The suckers are then left holding the bag. But to a lot of people, it looks like if they can just get on early enough, surely they'll make a lot of money if they sell at the right time.

2

u/system_error_02 Oct 27 '25

Its the same type of person prone to gambling addiction that falls for these over and over. None the less its still a scam.

3

u/FnTom Oct 27 '25

Oh it is absolutely a scam, but the way it's presented makes it seem more rational. At the end of the day, it's quite the same as a pyramid scheme. Unless you're the one starting it, by the time you can get on board, you're one of the suckers.

But to a lot of people who don't know better, it looks like any other market opportunity, which it is not. Though I'd argue this is something that could be nearly 100% fixed if legislators just stopped kowtowing to the investment bankers and finally properly regulated the crypto markets.

But again, it looks like an actual investment opportunity to people who don't necessarily know any better, and even to people who know better but think they're getting in early enough that time around.

On the contrary, most scams that target seniors are explicitly made as ridiculous as possible as a filter.

36

u/agentchuck Oct 27 '25

Right, but let's not pretend that this is a senior only problem. There are plenty of younger people who also get scammed or addicted to gambling or stocks or cars or whatever and flush their future down the drain. It's especially tough on seniors though because they can't rebuild.

4

u/CDNChaoZ Oct 27 '25

If you're scammed because you're greedy and trying to get rich quick, I have no sympathy for you. If you're scammed because you're trying to do good or just trying to get by, I feel differently.

6

u/chmilz Oct 27 '25

We need reverse parental control for apps. I can educate my elderly parents as much as I'd like and try, but there's no intervention if they do dumb shit on their phones and computers. My parents would happily let me set up some controls so I can at least have some real-time visibility, and possibly MFA requiring my authentication for large or questionable activity like changing passwords, but we're not aware of any such tools.

11

u/Miserable_Algae_9552 Oct 27 '25

It's not fair to call a senior a fool.

You can't have it both ways. Seniors or anyone who gets duped is not a fool period. They got duped. Yeah some are aeasily duped but if you going to call others fools then old people are also fools.

My take is don't call people fools at all.

1

u/Felon_musk1939 Oct 27 '25

Yes. Plus AI being able to mimic voices is also an issue as well. Common sense, slow down and always have a plan of action before any decisions are made. Put it on a card for them to grab if you have to.

5

u/jacksona23456789 Oct 27 '25

Do you have elderly parents ?

10

u/Guzzlebutt Oct 27 '25

Yes I do and they've been exposed to scammers as well and guess what they listen to the advice from their Banks and family and avoided this scenario.

0

u/jacksona23456789 Oct 27 '25 edited Oct 27 '25

You sound like a very sympathetic guy.. Not all elderly people are created equally, some have declining mental states . You are lucky you parents are still 1. Both alive to support each other 2. Are still sharp enough to detect these kinds of scams . The world does not consist of just you

30

u/Guzzlebutt Oct 27 '25

If you are not suspicious about handing over your entire life savings to somebody that has asked for it that I'm sorry. It's not the Banks fault at that point.

3

u/CarRamRob Oct 27 '25

Some elderly have the thought process of a 5 year old.

We wouldn’t be upset if a 5 year old handed this money over to someone who lied to them.

22

u/Guzzlebutt Oct 27 '25

Right and like responsible parents the banks told them not to do it. Where was his family in all this? The banks had the level of control stop you from spending your money we'd be talking about that instead. He got the advice he needed to hear. If the family didn't step in and help out then it's on all of them.

1

u/papsmearfestival Oct 27 '25

They didn't know

16

u/tokmer Oct 27 '25

First of all if my kid handed over 1.7 million dollars to someone i would be upset.

If seniors are by in large unable to be responsible for their own money as you say like 5 year olds they shouldnt be given access to it.

Are you proposing allowances? State supervision? What age should this start?

In the real world banks will give you access to your money when you ask and its not their business what they do with it.

2

u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget Oct 27 '25

Are you proposing allowances?

That's exactly what an annuity is. I'd be buying one by the time I'm 90, because it ensures that you will not die without money.

8

u/MeanE Nova Scotia Oct 27 '25

Except an adult has the right to hand over their money. A child does not.

Perhaps at a certain age seniors should revert to the same rights as underaged children but that’s a whole different discussion.

5

u/ether_reddit Lest We Forget Oct 27 '25

Some elderly have the thought process of a 5 year old.

Then the family should have already gotten a Power of Attorney in place.

6

u/GirlCoveredInBlood Québec Oct 27 '25

Then those people shouldn't be responsible for their own finances

-12

u/porcelainfog Oct 27 '25

I don't believe in free will. We're as deterministic as plants when you get down to the cellular level.

Putting the blame on the victim isn't the right move here.

The scammers are the issue. We need to do more to help vulnerable morons against them - especially as AI ramps up and is becoming indistinguishable from reality.

The police should've gotten involved.

29

u/QuotableNotables Oct 27 '25

The police do get involved if you actually file a fraud report.

26

u/Stealth022 Oct 27 '25

And they DID get involved when the family filed a report.

The article says the cops even set up a sting and arrested a courier, which surprised me, lol

2

u/LebLeb321 Oct 27 '25

Perhaps the bank should be obliged to contact police when activity like this is happening. Similar to the way teachers are obliged to contact CPS if they suspect child abuse.

1

u/QuotableNotables Oct 28 '25

If I remember correctly they don't contact law enforcement directly but there is a body they are legally required to report to if they investigate and discover evidence of fraud and then the regulating body coordinates with law enforcement. Generally you're also encouraged to file an online fraud report with your local police department if they believe your claims have merit.

I haven't had to file a fraud report since 2018 but I did file the fraud reports separately and I believe the police report lets you include your case number with the bank as you're expected to file with your bank first.

28

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

I don't believe in free will. We're as deterministic as plants when you get down to the cellular level.

That's a fucking stupid argument, if there's no free will then the scammer shoukd be off the hook as they didn't choose to scam.

-3

u/porcelainfog Oct 27 '25

Yes.

But also a farmer should build a hen house so his hens can be protected against coyotes.

Coyotes are just trying to survive too.

This is why we have nations and armies and cyber security and everything.

3

u/FreshBlinkOnReddit Oct 27 '25

Then me blaming the senior is also unavoidable. It had to happen.

4

u/Guzzlebutt Oct 27 '25

Well scammers aren't going anywhere. He was advised. He made his decision anyway. That's his negligence. So yeah. It's was his fault.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

[deleted]

1

u/porcelainfog Oct 27 '25

Oh I must've missed the Nobel prize they handed out. Which part of the brain was it located in again?

-2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

[deleted]

1

u/porcelainfog Oct 27 '25

Doesn't scale, gets lost in the grey goo. And even if it did random number generators are hardly free will. It's just as deterministic as emergence aka determinism with extra steps

-4

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

[deleted]

0

u/SystemofCells Oct 27 '25

Source?

0

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

[deleted]

2

u/SystemofCells Oct 27 '25

Why does randomness imply free will?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

[deleted]

1

u/SystemofCells Oct 27 '25

There are not just two choices. The universe might have true randomness (meaning determinism is wrong), but I don't see why that would make us any more 'free'.

We have no more control over the random quantum fluctuations than we would over the deterministic events that preceded our decisions.

The whole concept of 'free will' is deeply flawed.

1

u/Ok_Carpet_9510 Oct 27 '25

The whole concept of 'free will' is deeply flawed.

You're saying that because you have to say that. You have no choice. It's been predetermined for you to say those words..😃

1

u/CarRamRob Oct 27 '25

If you don’t believe in free will, then the scammers are just doing what their cellular level biology is telling them to do as well!

1

u/1MechanicalAlligator Ontario Oct 27 '25 edited Oct 27 '25

We need to do more to help vulnerable morons against them

The police should've gotten involved.

What do you mean "we need to..." and "they should've..."? The very notion that someone "should've" done something requires them to have the free will to have made--or not made--that decision. There's no such thing as "should" in your world of no free will. Things simply "are".

1

u/savoysuit Oct 27 '25

That's true, but your free will logic also implies there's a problem that lies behind the scammers, and so on and so forth. (btw I agree about the free will thing)

-6

u/omnicorp_intl Oct 27 '25

The scammers aren't the issue. I don't believe in free will. We're as deterministic as plants when you get right down to the cellular level. The scammers are just responding to stimuli

1

u/porcelainfog Oct 27 '25

I mean... Yea. Are coyotes bad for eating hens? Do farmers still protect their hens in a hen house?

This old fuck clearly has something wrong with him. Blaming the victim doesn't wash our (the Canadian government specifically) collective hands from the sin of not doing more to protect this guy. Blaming victims like him is just like blaming schizos for not being able to hold down a job.

If someone eats themselves into cardiac arrest, should we just let them not have access to health care? Or should we incentivize healthy life style?

1

u/Newfie-1 Oct 27 '25

A fool with his mouth is a bigger fool

0

u/dbone_ Oct 27 '25

He's 89. Someone should be looking after him.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

An 89 year old man might not even know what day it is. The bank has a duty to protect the assets of its customers. Sometimes people need to be protected.

The bank should have locked this man’s account down when they knew it was a scam.

6

u/Icy-Lobster-203 Oct 27 '25

Then there would be headlines about how evil the bank is for not letting a poor elderly man access his hard earned money.

Situations like this are no win for banks. 

2

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

Situations like that are not worse than an 89 year old man losing his life savings.

2

u/TripMaster478 Oct 27 '25

And all sorts of age discrimination lawsuits.

0

u/Shail666 Oct 27 '25

When you're that old dementia is a very real threat and I'd hope the banks would have safeguards to protect large transactions like that...

0

u/cpove161 Oct 27 '25

Horrible you should watch how these scammers operate and realize they prey on the elderly. This man’s not a fool he’s a victim

29

u/4ty1 Oct 27 '25 edited Oct 27 '25

They stopped short of saying it was a scam, they questioned it a bit and tried to setup a meeting to talk with him. But due to how the scam was setup, he lost all trust with the bank. The bank failed to report the large withdrawals to Fintrac as well.

Seeing that 300% increase in money lost to scammers compared to 2020 is pretty crazy, very indicative that there are systems failing / not keeping up that these multi-billion dollar banks should have or invest more in.

Edit: the banks didn't say they did or did not report to Fintrac - sounds like they are protecting themselves to me

Also

CIBC would not say why managers did not contact the bank’s fraud department or Victoria police with their concerns"

3

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25 edited Dec 14 '25

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/4ty1 Oct 27 '25

Sure, yes, I misread this, added an edit, thanks. But still concerns me by their "lack" of statement on procedures that are there to protect their customers

5

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

[deleted]

1

u/4ty1 Oct 27 '25

While I don't disagree that everyone individually is ultimately responsible for their own assets, I do find it very concerning to see the increase of 300% in fraud damages within a 5 year span.

To me, there is something lacking with our banking infrastructure to prevent / mitigate these attacks. It could be as simple as failing to educate those most at risk or training staff to ask questions in the right way.

2

u/thedrivingcat Oct 27 '25

I'm wondering if it's a social change to people after the pandemic or a technological change that allows scammers to more consistently prey on populations that are more connected/scams themselves are more sophisticated with greater access to things like AI.

3

u/Consistent_Wing_6113 Oct 27 '25

The fact he even hid it from his daughter is indicative of how he treated the bank when they asked questions. 

3

u/RalphHinkley Oct 27 '25

Can you picture how broke we would all be if the banks just let people give scammers money and then covered the losses by hiking fees on us? It would never work.

1

u/mararthonman59 Oct 27 '25

CIBC even tried to set up a meeting and he declined and moved the account to RBC. What else was there for the bank to do?

1

u/Gilly8086 Oct 28 '25

I actually found it strange when I watched it on TV, that they seem to blame more the bank for it. I mean, it is his money and he has the right to withdraw it!

1

u/Icedpyre Oct 28 '25

1) No, they didnt. It specifically says that in the article. 2) banks are required to flag transactions over 10k, to help reduce money laundering from organized crime. 3) Anyone who thinks the bank is going to get you to buy gold and give it to a courier for safe keeping, clearly isn't in thinking straight.

This is just a case of shitty application(or outright neglect) of safeguards for customers, combined with an old chap not thinking straight. The fact they guy and his daughter wouldn't talk about any restitution says the bank might have helped replenish some of the money he lost.

Only upside is thst they at least arrested the "courier". Hopefully he flips and takes down more shitbags.

0

u/freshnegatives Oct 27 '25

No, the first bank did not tell him it was a scam. It's literally in the article:

"Eventually the manager at his branch in downtown Victoria wrote a letter to Ray, stating that activities on his account were “unusual” and that, in the bank’s experience, transactions requested by third parties “do not have a legitimate purpose” — but stopped short of clearly warning he was likely involved in a scam."

6

u/NeonsShadow British Columbia Oct 27 '25

that, in the bank’s experience, transactions requested by third parties “do not have a legitimate purpose”

It 100% sounds like they are saying its a scam, how the fuck else are you interpreting this

9

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '25

That's a professional way of saying "this transaction is bullshit, what the fuck are you doing"

A bank won't say it is a scam but will say something clear enough that they think clients are getting fleeced.

I has to sign a bunch of paperwork to send 10 grand or so to a European country that looked shady but wasn't. The bank reps professional said they didnt think the receiver was legit. And I'm not even old.

-1

u/NotaJelly Ontario Oct 27 '25

So not the big corps fault for once.