[LatteLazy]

Also worth noting:

* UK infrastructure makes number spoofing very easy.

* UK banking legislation (and court rulings) put banks in a difficult position: they MUST accept a clients instruction to transfer money and do so rapidly (unless doing so would be a crime).

[avianlyric]

> they MUST accept a clients instruction to transfer money and do so rapidly (unless doing so would be a crime).

Not quite true. Banks are required to accept and process instructions quickly, the general idea being that bank should never prevent an individual from accessing their own money. But protecting a client from fraud is a legitimate reason for slowing down a transaction, you just can't delay it indefinitely. There are plenty of UK banks that will delay outbound bank payments by up to 24 hours if they think there's a good chance someone is being defrauded.

[pjc50]

I would be interested in knowing which court rulings those are.

[LatteLazy]

Some of the more recent judgements are outlined here:

https://www.mondaq.com/uk/financial-services/1056304/uk-high...

But it goes all the way back to common law. Basically the bank is a customers agent and must obey instructions to the best of its ability. It must exercise reasonable skill etc obeying those instructions. But unless it suspects fraud it cannot disobey. To quote: a bank is not required to act as an amateur detective.

There is very little room for them to decline a customer instruction once given. It needs to be pretty blatant fraud or otherwise illegal. Sending money to another account is neither on the face of it.