Money Mule - one woman's narrow escape.

Money mules use their private bank accounts to launder dodgy money for fraudsters. The funds often come from phishing scams, where criminals based overseas send fake emails to online bank customers. They trick the customers into parting with their account details.
For the scam to succeed, the fraudster needs a UK-based mule to receive money into his or her bank account, then withdraw it and send it overseas using a commercial money transfer service.

The banks have put out a fraud alert in the London Borough of Newham (see my BBC report), where they are monitoring over 1,500 suspicious bank accounts. They could belong to money mules.

23 year-old Barbara Gyami from Newham told me how she had a lucky escape...

"I am currently unemployed and I registered with jobsites and agencies. I received junk email. Six or seven were from a particular address. They said they had a particular job and that I would have to give them my bank account details.
I would only be working for 5 to 6 hours a week and I'd be paid between £1,500 and £2,000 a week. It sounded too good to be true. They had said that I would have to handle £6,000 a week in my account.
I emailed them back and they replied with a contract attached. Then I contacted my job adviser. She said I should be very vigilant.
I phoned their number and no one answered. I thought: how come you haven't got any offices or anyone to answer the phone?
I didn't know what they might have done with my account. They're still sending me emails.
Then Newham Council called me. They were doing a survey about these people. They told me it was illegal."

Court rules prize draw promotions are against the law

A High Court judge has ruled that certain promotions using prize draws are in breach of the law. Five companies have been told that they face enforcement orders.

The judge, Mr Justice Briggs, found that the infringements had occurred on a large scale and very large numbers of consumers had been sent the promotions.

Around 11.5 million promotions were sent out in one year. 200,000 consumers responded, mainly through premium rate phone calls or premium rate text messages

Typically, 'winners' would have to pay out costs amounting to more than the value of the prize. The price of calls and administration might be around £15. The prize, an MP3 player for instance, would only have cost the promoter £9.

In one example from 2008, letters were sent to nearly 1.5 million consumers telling them they had won one of a list of prizes, including £25,000 in cash. But 99.92% of recipients were allocated cheap electrical goods. They were encouraged to phone a premium rate line to claim the prize. Then they had to pay £8.50 for insurance and delivery.

In another one, 9 million strips of scratchcards were inserted in newspapers, offering Top Treats or a big jackpot as prizes. 99.9% of the winners won £10, a Greek cruise voucher, worth 59p or as the judge said "of dubious value".

The winners were encouraged to spend at least £8.43 on a premium rate call to learn about the prizes.

The case was brought by the Office of Fair Trading after it tried unsuccessfully to secure a voluntary agreement from the companies to stop distributing the promotions.