U.S. man loses $740,000 in retirement savings to scammers impersonating regulators, feds

[stats]

How One Man Lost $740,000 to Scammers Targeting His Retirement Savings

 

Criminals on the internet are increasingly going after Americans over the age of 60 because they are viewed as having the largest piles of savings.

 

July 29, 2024

 

For nearly three months, Barry Heitin, a 76-year-old retired lawyer, thought he was part of a government investigation that felt like something out of the movies. He was actually assisting criminals in stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars — of his own money.

 

Last fall, he spent just about every weekday doing the legwork and making withdrawals from his bank accounts as part of an intricate scam: He believed he was helping the feds safeguard his money and catch thieves who were after it.

 

“They kept telling me, ‘This is a big case and we are going to stop a whole ring of people,’” Mr. Heitin said. “It was like a rabbit hole. I was going down the hole with them.”

 

It cost him almost all of his retirement savings: roughly $740,000.

 

(more)

 

New York Times

https://archive.ph/DLWyA

 

 

[Lacessit]

For a trained lawyer, that sounds awfully naive. He did not think to visit a FBi field office? They are public knowledge.

[stats]

Further from the OP:

 

"They [the fraudsters] coach victims on how to sidestep fraud prevention measures at financial institutions, and they use manipulative psychological tactics — isolation, a sense of urgency or preying on people’s willingness to trust or connect — to keep the scam going.

...

People over 60, often targeted by cybercriminals because they are viewed as having the largest piles of savings, experienced the steepest losses among all age groups in 2023, at more than $3.4 billion, according to the F.B.I."
 

[maesariang]

Why would they need money to catch scammers? 

[stats]

It was the old scam about persuading the victim that his/her accounts had been hacked or otherwise compromised, and then convincing them to move all their funds to "safe" accounts that actually are controlled by the fraudsters, masquerading as regulators/law enforcement.

 

 

[gargamon]

Must have not been a very good lawyer if his retirement savings was only $740k.

[Gottfrid]

Another fool depart from his money!

[Gottfrid]

Just now, gargamon said:

Must have not been a very good lawyer if his retirement savings was only $740k.

That has already been answered in the news article as he fell for the scam. 🤣

[Baht Simpson]

4 minutes ago, gargamon said:

Must have not been a very good lawyer if his retirement savings was only $740k.

At 76 he's probably spent some of it and $740k is plenty to see him out of this life. 

[John Drake]

List here:

 

Quote

Big Store

[edit]

The Big Store is a technique for selling the legitimacy of a scam and typically involves a large team of con artists and elaborate sets. Often a building is rented and furnished as a legitimate and substantial business.[64] The "betting parlor" setup in The Sting is an example.

In 2014, a rural co-operative in Nanjing, China constructed an entire brick-and-mortar fake bank with uniformed clerks behind counters; the unlicensed bank operated for a little over a year, then defaulted on its obligations, swindling Chinese savers out of 200 million Chinese yuan.[65] Onecoin is a European example.    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scams

 

[save the frogs]

I dont doubt such scams exist, but do people really leave 750K sitting in a bank account?

Most people have most of their money in investments that cannot be touched.

So dont believe this story. 

 

Edited August 19 by save the frogs

[stats]

48 minutes ago, save the frogs said:

Most people have most of their money in investments that cannot be touched.

So dont believe this story. 

 

The news was reported in the NY Times, so it's legitimate.

 

And, if you had actually read the full news report, which you apparently didn't, you would have read that the victim had his funds in multiple accounts, including at banks and brokerage accounts. And because he drained his retirement accounts there, he's now facing an IRS tax bill on the withdrawals.

 

When his original brokerage (rightly)  balked at the guy suddenly wanting to drain his entire accounts without further confirmation or legitimate reason, he got around their objections by transferring his accounts at the behest of the fraudsters to a different brokerage, which then allowed him to drain the accounts without any further verification.

 

From the OP news report:

 

Draining His Retirement

"After Mr. Heitin pulled out a total of $113,000 from his checking and savings accounts, he was instructed to move his retirement money to accounts where he could more easily transact.

 

Those transfers would be trickier: He had more than $830,000 in his I.R.A. and brokerage account, and his adviser of more than 20 years would have questions.

...

[After being denied at the original brokerage] Mr. Smith [one of the fraudsters] came up with another idea: Roll the I.R.A. over to a different institution. That worked.

 

Mr. Heitin now had $834,000 in the new I.R.A., which he emptied in under two weeks, with no questions asked by the new provider, and moved the money into bank accounts."

 

[stats]

It's easy to come here and say the victim here was dumb and a rube... But in truth, these kinds of scams happen all the time, including here in Thailand. Where people are persuaded to transfer funds to criminals / fraudsters claiming to be police, or government officials or bank staff under various pretenses. And they somehow manage to persuade the victims to do things you wouldn't think people would normally do.

 

 

 

 

[stats]

1 hour ago, maesariang said:

Why would they need money to catch scammers? 

 

The pretense was getting the guy to believe some his accounts/funds had been compromised and were at risk, and thus he was persuaded to transfer/move his funds to what the fraudsters falsely claimed were safe, government controlled accounts.

 

From the OP report:

 

"That’s when a third man, who identified himself as Finn Whitrock, came on the line and said he was with the Internal Revenue Service. He provided a badge number and said that Mr. Heitin’s other accounts were at risk, but that the government could safeguard his money by transferring it to a federal locker.

 

If he was willing to cooperate with their investigation, Mr. Whitrock explained, Mr. Heitin could play a critical role in preventing a ring of criminals from preying on others — while ensuring he wouldn’t lose the $20,000 the thieves had tried to steal. But they needed to move quickly.

 

“Let’s do it,” Mr. Heitin said he had told them. “I then gave them access to my computer, and they started me in a series of withdrawals from my banks accounts.”

 

[steven100]

1 hour ago, stats said:

It was the old scam about persuading the victim that his/her accounts had been hacked or otherwise compromised, and then convincing them to move all their funds to "safe" accounts that actually are controlled by the fraudsters, masquerading as regulators/law enforcement.

 

 

 

On-line fraud has tripled in the last 4 years and continues to grow out of control.  These fraudsters need to be caught,  then face the firing sqaud or electric chair imo. 

They are the lowest ... 

[maesariang]

Walk into bank ask them would be the plan. Hang up if anyone calls you.

[stats]

38 minutes ago, maesariang said:

Walk into bank ask them would be the plan. Hang up if anyone calls you.

 

That's generally good advice, but should be expanded to a broader realm.

 

If something suspicious or unusual crops up:

 

--don't respond / take action directly to an unsolicited call you have received. If in doubt, call the financial institution separately on a verified number you know to be correct to make any inquiry.

 

(Apparently these days, there are caller ID spoofing hacks that can enable fraudsters to call people from their fraudster numbers, but have it appear to the call recipient that the call is actually coming from a legitimate entity).

 

--same for emails and SMSs purporting to be from financial entities asking you to do something unusual with your funds or asking you to give them your account passwords and such for "verification." Many U.S. FIs these days have messages on their websites and elsewhere clearly saying their staff will never call customers asking them to disclose such things over the phone or in reply to emails or SMSs.

 

[BangkokHank]

The scammers were in India. Did he not notice their Indian accents?

[BobBKK]

He was a lawyer?  jeeze 

[nobodysfriend]

Trust nobody , especially if money is involved ...

[Gaccha]

12 hours ago, stats said:

It's easy to come here and say the victim here was dumb and a rube...

The irony is that the people who tend to fall for these scams are exactly the people who think they would never fall for these scams. Since they are so over-cocky in their ability to spot scams they fail then to actually spot the scams. The very best victims of scams are scammers themselves.

[renaissanc]

If strangers call me and don't talk about either fertiliser or hotels, I end the call there and then. Every call from a new number is potentially a scam nowadays. 

[renaissanc]

1 hour ago, Gaccha said:

The irony is that the people who tend to fall for these scams are exactly the people who think they would never fall for these scams. Since they are so over-cocky in their ability to spot scams they fail then to actually spot the scams. The very best victims of scams are scammers themselves.

I prefer the scams from Nigerian Princes. Sadly they seem to be dying out.

[statman78]

Don’t know if it was part of a scam but yesterday I received a call on my Thai phone that started with +697.  I didn’t answer but after doing a little research according to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission of Thailand, +697 indicates a voice call over internet protocol from overseas.  Their recommendation is to avoid calls beginning with +697 or +698.

[terryq]

3 minutes ago, statman78 said:

Don’t know if it was part of a scam but yesterday I received a call on my Thai phone that started with +697.  I didn’t answer but after doing a little research according to the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission of Thailand, +697 indicates a voice call over internet protocol from overseas.  Their recommendation is to avoid calls beginning with +697 or +698.

Have had 4 of these over the last month all +697 although different actual numbers,  did not cancel them as that would indicates someone is operating the phone, just let them ring out.

 

[wavodavo]

15 hours ago, stats said:

Further from the OP:

 

"They [the fraudsters] coach victims on how to sidestep fraud prevention measures at financial institutions, and they use manipulative psychological tactics — isolation, a sense of urgency or preying on people’s willingness to trust or connect — to keep the scam going.

...

People over 60, often targeted by cybercriminals because they are viewed as having the largest piles of savings, experienced the steepest losses among all age groups in 2023, at more than $3.4 billion, according to  F.B.I."
 

I wonder if they offered him a cash reward for "helping them catch  the criminals "Lawyers are re-nouned  for being greedy !!

[bendejo]

If you get a call that your account was hacked, hang up and call your bank.  Use the telephone number you always use to when you need to call them.   Ask them something about your account.  If there is a problem it will be mentioned.

You can go online, of course, but if your connection was hacked they could be logging all you do, maybe that is how they got your data.  So if you do use a different machine and different net connection.

 

[spidermike007]

It boggles the mind, to consider the number of people who fall for these scams. Someone calls you, or contacts you online, and you send them money? Someone you have never met? Someone you have not researched? What gives? Where are the survival instincts? 

 

There is a whole subculture in this world, who absolutely refuse to work for a living, and instead like to prey on those who are vulnerable, naive, dumb, and easy victims. It is our responsibility to be careful, prudent, willing to do some vetting, some research, some due diligence, anytime we part with cash.

 

 

 

[john donson]

16 hours ago, gargamon said:

Must have not been a very good lawyer if his retirement savings was only $740k.

 

because you have more ?  how many TV users are using agents because they cannot get 400 / 800k 

[gargamon]

1 hour ago, john donson said:

 

because you have more ?  how many TV users are using agents because they cannot get 400 / 800k 

1) yes

2) not me 

I retired at 45. You?