[saki1611]

to give you caution about to at least minimize the risk of being a victim after withdrawing money from your bank and be killed, which just recently like what happened 2 days ago and took the lives of a lawyer-businessman and 2 gallant policemen.

the modus-operandi of the BG's has a pointer inside the bank who pretends to be a client or inquiring with bank account details (considering the inside structure of the bank without private office), actually base on the info this plays by a woman and even sometimes with a child with her. they operate by chances, that while inside the bank the pointer will look for possible victim who's withdrawing a big amount of money. the pointer then will give all the details to the strikers ( waiting outside the bank), the description of their prospect victim and even the exact description of the container of the withdrawn money. this will be clearly now to all of us why the bank should be strict on using the cellphone while inside the bank. and we us clients in the bank should be vigilant and caution the other clients to stop using their phone while inside the bank. if you hesitate in doing so, report it to the guard and let the security cease them in using their phones, even more so with text. this might hinder some of our rights but it's for our own good.

my suggestion when you have to withdraw a big amount of cash as needed, let say for employees' salary, better hire securities with armored vehicles. make an abrupt schedule, and don't make a pattern of withdrawing money like doing it always on the same day of the week or the same dates of the month. much better too if you just give the salaries through ATM. if you have to pay something, pay in checks (manager's check if it's really that big). these are all suggestions, if you have better idea that's good. the point is avoid withdrawing huge amount of cash from your bank.

be wise and be safe...

[brawnless]

These incidents are not uncommon.

Aside from "clients" inside the bank, employees are also suspect.

1. Can banks implement that ALL phones be turned off inside its premises for both clients and employees?

2. Hiring security may not be that simple. For big amounts of money, some members of the security could be suspect. Never heard of security agencies / bank personnel who were caught in connivance with robbers?

3. "Big" may be hard to define. 50k may or may not be worth getting some security for. What fraction of the 50k is to be paid to security? But even amounts smaller than that could be a target too.

4. Randomness decrease over frequency. Withdraw your employees' salary every week and over time, the random variables can be accounted for. (meaning not random anymore.)

just my .02

[Poodle]

Thanks for the heads up Saki. Nowadays, holdupmen don't hesitate to shoot their victims.

The brother of one of our security guards was gunned down in the cockpit arena in Cabanatuan NE. Apparently, he won big and he was shot 5 times with a .45 pistol by a team riding in tandem on a motorbike. The robbers knew who to hit and where he was keeping the money.

[ppts799]

thanks for the info saki!!! thats very helpful!

2 years ago, BDO guards tell customers to pocket their phones before entering the bank.

just a month ago, a BPI guard did not let me in until i got off the phone (ang daldal kasi ni ivan eh)

[Wp.22]

that is why our salaries are course through ATM cards to minimize the risk of hold-up.

[isuzu]

The problem here is not the use of cellphones in the bank, but on how prepaid SIMs are being sold. Cell companies and their distributors/retailer sell prepaid SIMs without even registering them, making it difficult for law enforcement agencies to trace who the owner of these SIMs are. It's easy for criminals to commit crimes with the aid of UNGREGISTERED SIMs, because there's nobody to go after when they're used in crimes.

As a comparison, prepaid SIMs are registered here in North America.

[Wp.22]

Originally Posted by isuzu

The problem here is not the use of cellphones in the bank, but on how prepaid SIMs are being sold. Cell companies and their distributors/retailer sell prepaid SIMs without even registering them, making it difficult for law enforcement agencies to trace who the owner of these SIMs are. It's easy for criminals to commit crimes with the aid of UNGREGISTERED SIMs, because there's nobody to go after when they're used in crimes.

As a comparison, prepaid SIMs are registered here in North America.

I agree with you sir dapat register even prepaid sim para iwas yung nangloloko.

[saki1611]

i made the thread not the intentions to brag what's right or wrong but to warn our fellow BOG's, especially those who live here in the RP, about the current operations of robbers and how to at least minimize the possibility of becoming a victim. Huge amount can determine by how much a person is willing to take a risk in securing the money in his/her possesion, yet still millions of pesos is still not worth of dying for. Come on, who idiot is gonna pay for security to keep safe his/her 50k, probably a brainless? Probably, it's better to suggest what's the better solution to avoid this troublous incident to happen among us and to our loveones too, rather than commenting what's wrong with the suggestive solutions. If you have better ideas share it with us. I'm a cop and just doing my part. If this thread cannot help you at all, then this is not for you.

[idamaru]

mga sirs, d2 sa amin sa Lucena SOP n ng mga banks ang naka off ang mga cp bago ka makapasok, kasi po bandang 2005-2006 nagkaroon ng sunod sunod na hold up mga victims e mga nag withdraw tapos inabangan sa labas, may mga namatay pa nga. tama si sir saki kailangan off cp para di maka coordinate mga robbers. tnx po

[crazy_hans]

i think the rule should apply to all as what brawnless pointed out kasi what if the employees themselves are the ones who tips off the robbers?mas maganda siguro kung mag install na lang ng signal jammer so kahit naka on ang phone mo its useless naman.

[CatsMeow]

I agree with Saki on this one. However, I observe that the no-cellphone rule is not being strictly enforced nowadays per my observation in some banks. When I was in Landbank UN Avenue in the past, first I had to unload and surrender my piece, then show my cellphone (3310 at that time) to the guard for the latter to verify that it's off. I haven't entered Landbank for some time, but the last time here it was the same (show cellphone to guard). Same at UCPB.

As for the jammers, they do exist and have been used, but will they also jam the guards' radios? And if it is the employees themselves who tip off the robbers, a landline's not affected by the jammers.

Where I really want those jammers used, is in church! Some people are just so hard-headed.

[saki1611]

Originally Posted by crazy_hans

i think the rule should apply to all as what brawnless pointed out kasi what if the employees themselves are the ones who tips off the robbers?mas maganda siguro kung mag install na lang ng signal jammer so kahit naka on ang phone mo its useless naman.

That's a good idea, but i doubt if these banks would buy these jammers which of course they wont have any benefit from it and would cost them a lot. you can suggest to the bank manager that bank employees should turn off the cellphone too during banking hours. Banks dont care about their clients' security after transacting business with them. Even their guards have nothing to do with you anymore after stepping out a few meters from the bank. Have some preventive measures to avoid being a victim. Prevention is better than cure...

[crazy_hans]

Originally Posted by CatsMeow

I agree with Saki on this one. However, I observe that the no-cellphone rule is not being strictly enforced nowadays per my observation in some banks. When I was in Landbank UN Avenue in the past, first I had to unload and surrender my piece, then show my cellphone (3310 at that time) to the guard for the latter to verify that it's off. I haven't entered Landbank for some time, but the last time here it was the same (show cellphone to guard). Same at UCPB.

As for the jammers, they do exist and have been used, but will they also jam the guards' radios? And if it is the employees themselves who tip off the robbers, a landline's not affected by the jammers.

Where I really want those jammers used, is in church! Some people are just so hard-headed.

meron na ako nakita nito sa church forbes park.oh well bakit ba ako nagtataka.

[crazy_hans]

Originally Posted by saki1611

That's a good idea, but i doubt if these banks would buy these jammers which of course they wont have any benefit from it and would cost them a lot. you can suggest to the bank manager that bank employees should turn off the cellphone too during banking hours. Banks dont care about their clients' security after transacting business with them. Even their guards have nothing to do with you anymore after stepping out a few meters from the bank. Have some preventive measures to avoid being a victim. Prevention is better than cure...

sa bagay extra cost lang nga naman yan.

[Django]

I personally knew the deceased. We met several times regarding the property our company leased from one of his clients. An active member of the Chamber of Commerce of Pasig, he was also close to the Mayor. He was only 36 years old. Aside from being a lawyer, he was engaged in the buy and sell of scrap metal on the side. That's the reason why almost everyday, he had to go to the bank and withdraw cash. He probably had the same bank routine everyday, that's why the robbers knew he had a lot of money on him.

[pogi]

pero kahit alang jammers kapag ganito magbabantay sa banko...tepok sila kay REAL DJANGO!



peace Atty.

[batangueno]

Great tips saki.

[ans3288]

alam ko may central bank circular requiring all clients turn off cellphone while in premises of bank...

[wtf jack]

Gentlemen, I disagree.

First of all, criminals do not abide by the rules. If a cohort of the robbers needs a cellphone to be on, then he or she will have his cell phone on regardless of the rules. It is similar to having gun-free zones, otherwise known as "defenseless victims zones".

Second, I don't even need a cell phone to point out a potential victim. All I have to do is walk out with the target, and the rest of the gang will do the rest.

Third, at least here where I am - it is OK to walk into a bank with a holstered pistol. Not that I would withdraw large amounts of cash because nobody carries cash around here anymore - plastic works everywhere or a check every now and then.

[saki1611]

Originally Posted by wtf jack

Gentlemen, I disagree.

First of all, criminals do not abide by the rules. If a cohort of the robbers needs a cellphone to be on, then he or she will have his cell phone on regardless of the rules. It is similar to having gun-free zones, otherwise known as "defenseless victims zones".

Second, I don't even need a cell phone to point out a potential victim. All I have to do is walk out with the target, and the rest of the gang will do the rest.

Third, at least here where I am - it is OK to walk into a bank with a holstered pistol. Not that I would withdraw large amounts of cash because nobody carries cash around here anymore - plastic works everywhere or a check every now and then.

the third reason is probably the best or one of the best solutions to avoid being a victim, but here in our beloved country it's prohibited, not only in banks but anywhere, a civilian in holstered pistol, actually same with the police. one problem is, robbers here operate in group minimum of 10 bg's, even though you have your piece but you're alone you'll be outnumbered and out powered. some groups have long and high powered fa's such as M16's.

FYI guys, in makati city there's already an existing city ordinance that prohibits bank clients inside the bank in using their cellphone. i agree with wtf jack, these perpetrators don't mind the rules, yet as of now since the implementation of the ordinance there's no reported same incident in makati. so far, all the reported incidents happened in manila, paranaque and quezon city. probably the ordinance helps even with a little percent of probability. having our guns on our side don't assure us we can not be a victim. as local cops always say "kaunting gulang lang."

[Poodle]

Originally Posted by wtf jack

Gentlemen, I disagree.

First of all, criminals do not abide by the rules. If a cohort of the robbers needs a cellphone to be on, then he or she will have his cell phone on regardless of the rules. It is similar to having gun-free zones, otherwise known as "defenseless victims zones".

Second, I don't even need a cell phone to point out a potential victim. All I have to do is walk out with the target, and the rest of the gang will do the rest.

Third, at least here where I am - it is OK to walk into a bank with a holstered pistol. Not that I would withdraw large amounts of cash because nobody carries cash around here anymore - plastic works everywhere or a check every now and then.

Saki was merely reporting what actually happened in these incidents. The modus operandi was that someone on the inside communicated to his or her cohorts on the outside the description of the would be victim. These are factual and not in fact hypothetical, and besides, the incidents happened in the Republic of the Philippines. It's not ok to walk in a bank with a holstered pistol in these here parts (and in many other parts of the World as well as far as I know - and I've been around a bit). He was giving us a heads up (because he's a cop) and I am grateful for that.

[wtf jack]

Originally Posted by saki1611

xxx this will be clearly now to all of us why the bank should be strict on using the cellphone while inside the bank. and we us clients in the bank should be vigilant and caution the other clients to stop using their phone while inside the bank. if you hesitate in doing so, report it to the guard and let the security cease them in using their phones, even more so with text. this might hinder some of our rights but it's for our own good... xxx

There is a big difference between "just reporting what happened" and "advocating actions". Saki1611 is clearly promoting cellphone ban inside banks, which I believe is not helpful. I generally go against "feel good" measures of dubious value.

I have this strong aversion to "this might hinder some of our rights but it's for our own good..." line. This reasoning had been abused by so many governments all over the world, including the US. I will resist each new ban just as a matter of principle.

[saki1611]

Originally Posted by wtf jack

There is a big difference between "just reporting what happened" and "advocating actions". Saki1611 is clearly promoting cellphone ban inside banks, which I believe is not helpful. I generally go against "feel good" measures of dubious value.

I have this strong aversion to "this might hinder some of our rights but it's for our own good..." line. This reasoning had been abused by so many governments all over the world, including the US. I will resist each new ban just as a matter of principle.

sorry to disappoint you wtfjack, but we're living in different country with big differences in a lot of things, amongst are cultures and politics. though our own constitution is more likely patterned with the US', some of these rights are not applicable to us, yet. rights coincide responsibility, if clients have the right to use their cellphones while inside the bank, other clients too have the right to go home safe and secured and at peace with their families after transacting business in the bank. as i have mentioned on my third post there's already an existing ordinance, particularly in makati city, prohibiting bank clients in using cellphone while in the bank premises which propagates the security of the bank and its clients. as far as i know this ordinance do not violate the constitution of our country rather promote sense of security to everyone who transacts business in the banks. i am not a politician to talk about bill of rights, i'm just an ordinary local cop bro, who happens to have friends here and concern about their safety and security and definitely not for their rights in using their cellphone. please try to read again the first post and focus on the 3rd paragraph. thanks.

[wtf jack]

We all know that there is no such thing as a right to use the cell phone. What I am concerned about is the propensity of the government to ban lawful activities without regard to the effectiveness of such ban in solving or alleviating the original problem.
What concerns me even more is the willingness of the people to go along with any kind bans - without any kind of protest, not even a whimper. Are we as a people so used to getting pushed around and stepped on by figures of authority that we are willing to bleat yes to every "feel good" and "feel secure" bans? That atmosphere is very conducive to government abuse, which in turn promotes graft and corruption-the bane of the Filipino culture.

[Poodle]

Banning the use of cellphones only within the bank is not an actual violation of the right to use cellphones elsewhere (communication is I think a basic right). The ban was a consequence of actual crimes being committed and is in fact a remedy. Cause and effect. And as for effectivity, it was effective because it was demonstrated using actual data that in municipalities where cellphone use was banned inside banks, the number of incidents was zero.

And I beg to disagree with the contention that we Filipinos over here do not as a rule uphold and defend our basic rights. We do in the things that we feel, really matter. There's room for improvement of course (we can be more contentious and litigious over other important things as well), but basically, we exercise that right.

Graft and corruption is a separate issue and is not connected with cellphone use inside banks. Yes, graft and corruption must be addressed.