Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4
Results 31 to 33 of 33

Thread: R699 car sales scheme court battle

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ike_009 View Post
    Maybe but if Satinsky was submitting the loan applications and falsifying application information is it really that hard to believe that he changed contact details also rendering the phone call ineffective.
    The banks would have done a credit cheque anyway, it should have been suspicious to them if all of the customers have the same telephone number and that is not a number that is already on their credit profiles.
    When an anti-piracy method is affecting the game for people who legitimately bought it and causing other people not to buy the game, there is obviously something wrong with it!

  2. #32
    Assassin of Accountants Ike_009's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Pretoria
    Posts
    7,799

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wyzak View Post
    The banks would have done a credit cheque anyway, it should have been suspicious to them if all of the customers have the same telephone number and that is not a number that is already on their credit profiles.
    I would agree with you but Credit checks in SA have become more about box ticking than an evaluation. I don't need to tell the story of how a bcom honours student can't get more than R50 credit on a salary that's above R10k in a career where debt issue can get him fired.
    Last edited by Ike_009; 28-07-2014 at 01:30 PM.
    My ignore list: n/a

  3. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ike_009 View Post
    I would agree with you but Credit checks in SA have become more about box ticking than an evaluation. I don't need to tell the story of how a bcom honours student can't get more than R50 credit on a salary that's above R10k in a career where debt issue can get him fired.
    Yep, but I'm arguing from the NCR's view point on what the banks could have done, not just what they did do or what was legally required of them. My opinion remains that it would not have been difficult for the banks to protect themselves from this while blowing the whistle on crime. Instead they stood bank and assisted in a crime. They should be held accountable for that.
    When an anti-piracy method is affecting the game for people who legitimately bought it and causing other people not to buy the game, there is obviously something wrong with it!

Similar Threads

  1. AMD's new GPU naming scheme explained
    By James in forum Gaming News Articles
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 12-09-2013, 10:34 PM
  2. Clan owner charged in global bank hacking scheme
    By James in forum Gaming News Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 27-07-2013, 02:07 PM
  3. EA ditches their online pass scheme
    By James in forum Gaming News Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 16-05-2013, 10:14 AM
  4. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 24-02-2010, 11:20 AM
  5. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 20-07-2009, 03:14 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •