Having the person read out their bank info and claim it matches the bank records is a way to create trust, the first call makes the person worried about their money and when the second call comes in they are not as skeptical as they should be when someone asks for their bank info. It also is a way to see how good of a mark the person might be, the more info they give out the scammers know they have a good chance of getting them to fall for the next phase.
That seems to me like a risky move. It sort of dangles out additional red flags when I feel like the first call would have already established trust. But I guess that part is really more testing the waters. I guess the worst case scenario there would be that they lose their mark, whereas the worst case scenario if they skipped it without further grooming the mark would be that she catches on and shows up to their meeting with a police officer or two.
I did find the unriffed version yesterday. It made the last scam a little more clear. The essence of the scam seemed really stupid though. "I found $30,000 in cash. Instead of splitting it up right here and going our separate ways, show me that you have $9000 to your name first to prove.... something about trust... then we'll split it up." The putative reason for the mark giving over her real money made no sense. Why not, in the fictional world where this cash exists, just say "Okay that's $10,000 for me, $10,000 for you, and $10,000 for this other lady. See ya around!" ?
Topic: How was that first scam supposed to work? (Read 2166 times)