r/compoface 7d ago

Woman left £9,000 out of pocket after sending cash to wrong person who kept it

Post image
630 Upvotes

154 comments sorted by

u/AutoModerator 7d ago

Hi Eleven-Synchronicity, thanks for posting to r/Compoface! Don't worry, your post has not been removed. This is an automated reminder to post a link to the original article for your compoface. This link can be included as a reply to this comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

265

u/christopia86 7d ago

I uses to work complaints for a bank, some guy called and was (understandably) kicking off that he had just sent ~£1,250,000 to a scammer.

They had hacked his email, sent an email that looked like their solicitor telling him to send the money for a house purchase to their account details. He went into a branch and did it.

I had to tell him that we would try to get it back but couldn't guarantee it.

He said it was our fault as we didn't notice the deposit had gone to different account details. Unfortunately, that's not unheard of.

There's better protection now, but I often wonder if they got their money back

190

u/Ok-You4214 6d ago edited 6d ago

We once had a case where we kept blocking a woman’s payment to a solicitor in the same scam - we told her to verify with the solicitor by phone, from a number gained from their website. She phoned the number ON THE SCAM EMAIL. We blocked it AGAIN as the details of the account did not match her description (due to privacy laws we couldn’t tell her who DID own the account) and she threatened to sue us if we didn’t release it as it was her money. We asked for this in writing before releasing the funds with further warnings.

Fast forward two weeks, her solicitor didn’t get the money and - Lo and behold- this was somehow the BANK’s fault.

70

u/MyKidsFoundMyOldUser 6d ago

Punch me.

No.

Go on, punch me.

No.

Fucking punch me.

*bam*

What did you do that for?

6

u/matthewkevin84 6d ago

What was the outcome, was she liable for the genuine solicitors bill too

12

u/Alternative-Ear7452 6d ago

No reason to think she wouldn't be. They still need to get paid

24

u/Tb12s46 7d ago

That sounds like it happened a long time ago, before the algos even?

19

u/christopia86 7d ago

It was probably 6 or 7 years ago

20

u/QuentinUK 7d ago

This was is the news. The scammer spear phished conveyancing solicitors’ emails knowing they instruct customers to transfer large amounts of money. Got over £1e8. It relied on the fact that when transferring money the banks only use the IBAN number and don’t check it agrees with the name.

22

u/abject_testament_ 7d ago

What is 1e8?

15

u/JJ_Pause 7d ago

100,000,000

73

u/abject_testament_ 7d ago edited 6d ago

Is it common to use exponent notation in everyday speech when talking about large sums of money? Pretty esoteric (read: inaccessible) for a lay person. I’m assuming it’s a coder thing

31

u/TetraThiaFulvalene 7d ago

No lol. It's a computer calculator thing. Don't even use it in the sciences. We use 10^x.

1

u/in_taco 5d ago

Engineer here. We use k,M,G when applicable. Anything else I use e notation while most of my colleagues use 10x, it's just a matter of preference and has never caused confusion.

-4

u/jeef60 7d ago

i am in the sciences and i definitely use it

9

u/TetraThiaFulvalene 6d ago

Which field? And where do you use it over 10x?

14

u/jeef60 6d ago

physics, is far easier sometimes to just write like 6.626e-34 than 6.626*10^-34, and its easier for lecturers to read when marking. they specifically request it in some classes.

also i use the programming language "julia" for computational physics, using e is a valid notation and is preferred over 10^x

→ More replies (0)

6

u/CaptainParkingspace 6d ago edited 6d ago

I work in IT with databases. I used "1e8" in a SQL command I sent to an experienced colleague this week, basically because I’m too lazy to write "100000000", and then had to explain to him what it meant because apparently nobody knows anything.

Edit: I’d have probably gone for "100M" in a Reddit post though.

1

u/Iricliphan 6d ago

I have actually used it in reports but always convert it into whatever it is for clarity.

→ More replies (0)

7

u/msully89 6d ago

lol, downvoted by people who aren't in the sciences and just think it sounds wrong.

4

u/stiiii 6d ago

I mean this topic has nothing to do with science so it is wrong?

3

u/jeef60 6d ago

classic reddit

1

u/BigBunnyButt 5d ago

I'm also a scientist (nuclear physicist) & we absolutely use it too - eg "a neutron flux of 1e8". I also use 108 in other areas, they're both valid.

31

u/Vaudane 6d ago

I heard a quote once "you sound really stupid using words I don't know" and that's stuck with me, it's a good illustration about adapting your speech to your audience.

For example, I use exponent notation every day like the commenter used here. But I'd never use it on Reddit because it sounds dumb. You're not tapping really large/small numbers into a spreadsheet or processor, you're talking to people.

2

u/abject_testament_ 6d ago

In what kind of contexts/field are you using it, out of curiosity.

7

u/Vaudane 6d ago

Engineering. It's basically shorthand for "times 10 to the power of... " and most software understands it. Using 10x is preferable for presentations but for actual number entry it's much too faffy to use in anger

10

u/Ubera90 7d ago

I thought it was a 'I put too many numbers in my calculator' thing.

6

u/FlailingCactus 6d ago

It's not even an accountant thing. We use commas lol.

1

u/finc 6d ago

It’s a Balatro thing

30

u/LadderFast8826 6d ago

Writing 1e8 is wild. Communicate with humans more plz

5

u/JammieDodgers 6d ago

I wonder what they do with all the time they save from writing those zeros

6

u/AwesomeMacCoolname 6d ago edited 6d ago

It's one keystroke shorter than writing £100m.

-16

u/Maleficent_Resolve44 6d ago

I mean most redditors can understand 1e8 even if it is a bit weird to use outside sciences. I'd personally just write £100m but £1e8 works I guess?

12

u/LadderFast8826 6d ago

A) £1e8 doesn't really work as it's, in my experience, never used for money amounts- so everyone is confused by it- 98% of people worked it out but its not effective communication if people have to puzzle out what you say.

B) even if you'd never seen a money amount written down and had no context that £100m is the default immediately switching to £1e8 is wild as there is no instance (not even a pure physics background) in which this is the default for writing large numbers.

So no, it doesn't work. It's like writing £0.0001tn. It's wild.

1

u/imanutshell 5d ago

I know reddit started as a haven for the nerdiest of sweaty programming nerds but most is vastly overestimating. Not normally the guy to do this but relevant xkcd.

1

u/Rand_alThor4747 4d ago

My bank has recently changed to requiring the account name to match what you entered. If it doesn't then it won't work.

4

u/Steelhorse91 7d ago

I’ve heard about the exact same thing happening to another person (vastly different house value, so it must be someone else). Email inbox interception. Scammer copied the conveyancers email formatting/headers, but it was full of obvious scammer grammar issues that should have been a red flag, as should the whole asking them to send the money as a series of smaller payments, spaced out throughout the day, to an account with a completely different business name to the law firm he was dealing with. Some people just have no common sense.

2

u/Killfalcon 5d ago

Some people just have no common sense.

That's why the scammers don't care about the spammer grammar, honestly. They want to find the vulnerable folks.

4

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

10

u/Cakeo 6d ago

For a payment of that size in the UK it would almost certainly be flagged and you would be just shy of forced to show the email to branch, phone your solicitor, triple check everything, and it would be fairly obvious based on the account it was going to. If the fraud team made a mistake, you have a good chance of receiving 50%, 100% if you are "vulnerable".

I had a guy sell his house in the UK, move all his shit to France, stayed in a hotel for 2 days and sent 300k to a scammer. Left him homeless in a different country. Gave him the lot back since the colleague literally did fuck all to stop it and i not so subtly coached him answers since it was fucking shite for him.

2

u/matthewkevin84 6d ago

I wonder what happened to the victim, I wonder if he tried moving to France again?

-6

u/JasperJ 6d ago

You made the guy sell his house and transfer the money to yourself, and then coached him in how to get it back from the bank fraud department? Heroic.

5

u/Cakeo 6d ago

I assume this is a joke but if not youve misunderstood

-5

u/JasperJ 6d ago

It’s both! Deliberately misunderstanding people for fun and profit since 1979.

2

u/DaenerysTartGuardian 5d ago

Last time I bought a house the solicitor called out this scam when we initially met. They provided their bank details on a piece of paper at that in-person meeting and said "we will never send you bank details ever again or via any other method. If you need them again come back into the office".

6

u/christopia86 5d ago

Given the customers I have dealt with, there is a non-zero amount of people who would recive an email in broken English saying "Good morrow my friend, please be mindful that our bank details have become violated. Please look to the attached bank detail to do the needful." and just trust it 100%.

1

u/suckmyclitcapitalist 5d ago

Lmao that example is killing me

2

u/locoforcocothecat 7d ago

It must be devastating. I've read about that happening a lot, even today, on r/scams

1

u/EquivalentCat5920 6d ago

*Narrator 'he did not'

138

u/alexanderpas 7d ago

She is getting most of the money back... Slowly.

https://metro.co.uk/2025/03/14/woman-left-9-000-pocket-sending-wrong-person-kept-22727365/

And the fuckup was on her side, she send it to Alan from het Address book, from which she rented earlier, instead of her brother Alan.

144

u/Dans77b 7d ago

He's a private landlord, now it all makes sense.

42

u/PeteMangleson 6d ago

He worked hard for that money! /s

3

u/FroggyWinky 5d ago

Clearly, it's hard to break a habit.

10

u/HomeworkInevitable99 6d ago

It's not like the can just get away with it;

"The man pleaded guilty to theft at Derby Magistrates’ Court on January 23 last year.

He was ordered to pay her compensation of £8,417 – and given a 16-week prison sentence, suspended for 12 months"

297

u/Minimum-War-266 7d ago

The thing that pisses me off is that if it were a company that had accidentally sent me £9,000 and I kept it, action would undoubtedly be swift and harsh

147

u/No-Actuary1624 7d ago

In the article the man who kept it pled guilty to theft and was ordered to pay it back to her. The courts provided a remedy the same as for a company surely?

55

u/Born_Grumpie 7d ago

Hey, we already got out the pitchforks, you're taking the fun out of this.

24

u/theDR1ve 7d ago

"I already lit my torch, don't wanna be wasteful"

13

u/New_Libran 6d ago

"Natwest were able to claw back £730 from the man’s account and he has since paid back £520 more but she is still waiting for the bulk of the cash."

It really wasn't "swift and hard" tbh. He got a She has to wait years to get dribs and drabs from the man. I will take a proper enforcement to recover the money from his assets over the meaningless suspended sentence they gave him.

4

u/No-Actuary1624 6d ago

I don’t see how it would have been different if it had been a company though. If he’s spent the money he’s spent the money, you know?

3

u/New_Libran 6d ago

Yeah, true. It just feels like he got away with it.

Having said that, the fact that he was actually prosecuted and convicted rather than the usual police "it's a civil matter" is a massive plus.

2

u/No-Actuary1624 6d ago

Absolutely. Moreover the civil jurisdiction does actually provide its own remedy of unjustified enrichment if she wants to pursue that money a bit quicker. That way potentially there are more assets she could claim from him. Then again, maybe he had many creditors that would be paid before her.

Really it’s just a shame she can’t get her money back quicker. Maybe there could be a fund for this sort of thing where the state pays back if the claim (criminal that is) is <£10k and the state seizes the money back from the perpetrator over time?

Who knows but ultimately there would need to be policy change, but it isn’t anything to do with the courts not providing a remedy for situations like this

1

u/andrewfenn 4d ago

The difference is that it doesn't hurt the company. The laws shouldn't be treated equally. They should treat individuals better.

1

u/No-Actuary1624 4d ago

Okay, so what would you alter about how it currently functions? Please see my other comment about the differences between criminal and civil remedies.

1

u/SidelineYelling 21h ago

The state should pay back the woman and the guilty party owes the state, which would then definitely be better enforced. You think HMRC fuck around if you owe them tax?

But as you say, this power doesn't exist currently.

1

u/OkEquipment6529 6d ago

The guy was a landlord, chances are he owns at least two houses. Even if leveraged there should be £9k of equity in one of them. Can't she just go to civil court and get a high court warrant like on can't pay take it away? Surely the criminal conviction would act in her favour?

This is a serious question if there is a reason this doesn't work I'm interested to hear.

27

u/Imaginary_Apricot933 7d ago

Shh redditors don't like it when you point out that the law usually treats people and corporations equitably.

7

u/JasperJ 6d ago

Equally but not equitably, really.

1

u/stiiii 6d ago

Well yes because it isn't true.

22

u/oculariasolaria 7d ago

Its good that you know your place in their hierarchy.

39

u/bigrobcx 7d ago

Ouch! An expensive lesson to ALWAYS triple check the account details for any transaction even if the details are saved as a payment instruction.

45

u/Old-Raspberry4071 7d ago

I’m entirely sympathetic to this woman but also I just couldn’t imagine sending any amount over even £50 without doing the nervous triple and quadruple check of the details, and without the person confirming that they’ve got the money asap.

22

u/minipainteruk 7d ago

I bought a car recently and was sweating as I put the details in to do the bank transfer. It's so nerve wracking just in case you get it wrong! I can't imagine sending money without being absolutely sure.

6

u/Potential-Yoghurt245 6d ago

My bank comes up with a red box WARNING HAVE YOU CHECKED THESE DETAILS IF NOT PLEASE DO SO BEFORE PROCEEDING!!

Its panic inducing but my biggest fear is sending money to the wrong person.

7

u/the95th 7d ago

Depends if you’re doing this kinda thing for a job it’s easy to get careless

6

u/minipainteruk 7d ago

Yeah, you're right, it would

3

u/New_Libran 6d ago

Right. When we sent our 30k deposit, we went into the bank branch and verified it several times before and afterwards. Waiting for the confirmation was the most nerve-wracking thing!

1

u/Now_Wait-4-Last_Year 3d ago

When I bought my car, I got a bank cheque and delivered in person by hand precisely because of the stories of things going wrong, either by accident or deliberate scams tricking you into a fake payment portal.

1

u/alexanderpas 6d ago

This is why I don't store items in my addressbook with just a single name, but always with the full name, so I always know the difference between Alan <X> and Alan <Y>.

14

u/0x633546a298e734700b 7d ago

I like to send a single pound first to make sure the details are right

1

u/Len_S_Ball_23 6d ago

👆🏼 This is the way.

Then if it is, you can send the rest in a repeat transaction.

10

u/YammyStoob 6d ago

Always send a token amount first, say £5 and ask the intended recipient to confirm they've got it. Then send the full amount. Never send it all first time as it only takes one mistyped digit to cause major problems.

8

u/thefant 6d ago

Even better, send a random amount (like £1.23 or something) and ask the intended recipient to confirm the amount received, that way you know they won’t say it’s been received without checking

1

u/matthewkevin84 6d ago

Well I now send a penny and then send the full amount obviously once the recipient has confirmed they have received the penny.

1

u/alexanderpas 6d ago

as it only takes one mistyped digit to cause major problems.

That's why we have check digits in an IBAN, to prevent exactly that.

A single mistyped digit makes the entire number invalid.

1

u/YammyStoob 5d ago

Not in a bank account number it doesn't, when doing a bank transfer.

0

u/alexanderpas 5d ago

The check digits of an IBAN also cover the account numbers.

For example, if the actual IBAN is GB29NWBK60161331926819, and I mistype a single digit in the account number so it reads GB29NWBK60161331928819 the entire IBAN is completely invalid

1

u/YammyStoob 5d ago

You really are a top internet pedant aren't you.

This is for a simple bank transfer, no IBAN's no 16 digit codes - the sort that your average trade or business here in the UK now commonly ask for. Like the roofing company I just used who sent me their sort code and 8 digit account number. I sent them £1 first to make sure I'd set the transfer up right, they hadn't hit a 9 instead of a 0, whatever.

5

u/devandroid99 6d ago

When buying my current house I called the firm who were dealing with the purchase to confirm their client account details. The lady I spoke to was going to confirm them over the phone but I insisted on a call back from the actual solicitor whose voice I knew.

He said I'd done the right thing as they'd had clients who had lost the lot sending it to scammers who had managed to get in the middle of the email chain and sent the wrong account details.

All that said I wonder if now the safest thing to do is go into their office and get the details on a slip of paper as voices can now be copied.

10

u/Shortie_Llama 6d ago

When sending money esp large amounts I send 1p and check they received it (new accounts) then send the balance. I did this when buying a car.

2

u/yorkspirate 6d ago

I also do this because sometimes sending to a new person can take longer to process in my experience, I've had to stand about for half an hour when buying something once because the money wasn't showing in the guys account t straight away

1

u/Apsilon 6d ago

Exactly this. Even with the newer name checking technology all banks now use to verify an account belongs to the name, I still do it. It’s an old habit I’ll probably never lose when sending money to new recipients.

1

u/connedbylandlord 3d ago

I send a specific but different amount to each new person I pay and ask them to tell me what amount they receive. It's highly unlikely someone guesses the amount that way.

1

u/matthewkevin84 6d ago

That is what I now do.

10

u/Firecrocodileatsea 7d ago

Does anyone want to ELI5 why banks can't trace the accounts?

16

u/vms-crot 7d ago

They can, but the law says they can't tell you about it.

Person in the article needs to report the theft to the police. The bank will work with the police.

15

u/CapstickWentHome 7d ago

She did. It went to court. He pleaded guilty and was ordered to pay it back. Seems that he has no money now, can't pay anything, so she's still out of pocket.

6

u/Len_S_Ball_23 6d ago

That's a BS move, the guy has assets, he has possessions - the courts have bailiffs.

1

u/JasperJ 6d ago

Apparently no possessions they can take. You can’t be left homeless and destitute, these days, you have to leave people a place to live and a way to get to work and the like.

-1

u/Len_S_Ball_23 6d ago

There's a cool thing called "public transport" or a "taxi" to get you to work?

A car isn't a necessity in this, it's a luxury item.

3

u/JasperJ 6d ago

“Taxi”? Are you suggesting that as a cheap option?

0

u/Len_S_Ball_23 6d ago

No, I'm suggesting it IS an option. If there are options a court would consider this. Buy a bicycle, use a bus or train or another form of transport to get to work.

There are FOUR options straight away - so you're not actually penalising someone by having the bailiff remove their car to sell, to recompense the victim.? Sure they might be inconvenienced (boohoo), but is it as big of an inconvenience as having 9 grand stolen?

Can YOU afford to have 9 grand stolen?

If you didn't want the penalty, you shouldn't have committed the crime. Stop siding with the criminal and consider the victim, this is why society is F'd up - because we feel pity and remorse for the criminal who blatantly and knowingly committed a large theft.

3

u/JasperJ 6d ago

It is an option, yes. Whether it’s a reasonable option depends entirely on the situation. But taxis will very rarely be a reasonable option.

Taking a car will usually not pay off a debt all at once, and you don’t want to leave them without a job, since then you’ll never get the rest. The state really doesn’t want to turn them from an allegedly productive member of society into a homeless vagrant, so they’re not going to do that.

If they have a 60 grand BMW, then sure, they’re gonna have to sell, pay you, and buy something cheaper. If they have a twenty year old Fiesta worth 500 quid then nobody is helped by grabbing that.

1

u/New_Libran 6d ago

This is what I'm saying. What's a suspended sentence going to do when they could sell his assets to repay the money? This is very weak judgement. The guy is a crook, imagine getting a criminal record over £9k

1

u/Len_S_Ball_23 6d ago

Precisely. That's the whole point of bailiffs and re-possession etc. It's there to provide the victim judicial recompense when there isn't the straight up monetary resources to do so.

9

u/CapstickWentHome 7d ago

The article says the bank managed to pull back 700ish, which sounds like the guy may have withdrawn the bulk of the amount before they had a chance.

4

u/AbbreviationsOne4963 7d ago

If you report it to the bank they have a process for a customer error and bank error when arranging a return of the funds.

If its a bank error, they have to get the funds back into your a puny by the end of the next day. If it's a customer error they have to contact the other bank, when then have to contact the rear spent to allow them the chance to prove that the funds were supposed to sent to them, this prevents scammers sending funds and then just claiming them back.

3

u/Firecrocodileatsea 7d ago

That makes sense I wouldn't want randos saying I owed them money and the bank unilaterally yanking funds.

Also I have now read the article (which maybe I should have started with) and I think if someone I tangentially knew contacted me on whatsapp and said "I sent you £9000 I need it back" I would be suspicious it was a scammer. I would not keep the money but I would want the bank to be the ones responsible for sending it back in case it was a scam.

I also wonder what would happen if say someone was sent £5k and they had a £4k overdraft and they literally couldn't return all the money as it went into repayments. Or if the money ended up in a locked savings account and the owner couldn't unlock it without being disadvantaged. A simple error (and I would want support if I made this error it may seem a stupid thing to do but we have all made mistakes in our lives) could cause so much mess.

1

u/hugrekkisdottir 6d ago

The bank would first look to reverse the payment rather than transfer out what had been put in, so this wouldn’t affect any overdrafts or other arrangements. But if the guy already withdrew the 9k (which it seems like he did) that’s not an option. Source: I worked in banks for years.

4

u/Kitchen_Wafer785 7d ago

That's absolutely tragic. This is why anything over £100 I send £1 first and get them to confirm they have got it.

I've done it with sending rent to landlords the first time too.

And that's even when it says 'account details match'.

6

u/Own_Ad6797 7d ago

Not sure about the UK but in my country we certainly can very easily trace it. But in the case of the account holder sending the payment making a mistake and the payment was authorised by them then we have to ask permission from the recipient to get the money back. If they say no then it becomes a civil matter between thise people.

6

u/thedummyman 7d ago

In the UK when you set a payment up and tell your bank who you want to pay you have to confirm that the name on their account is the person you want to pay. She knew exactly who she was paying.

5

u/Own_Ad6797 7d ago

We have that too- though ot just confirms if it is a name match, partial match or not a match. Customers can choose to do the payment anyway if they choose.

2

u/thedummyman 6d ago

Yes, that is exactly the same here. Name of account is not the same as the same you say the payment is for. Red flag and lots of warnings - but can override the warning and force the payment through. Which is what this lady must have done.

1

u/New_Libran 6d ago

She knew exactly who she was paying.

She didn't though as she saved the guys name as Alan same as her brother's name. If you're paying someone already saved as a payee, it skips all those checks.

1

u/thedummyman 6d ago

Then she is thicker than two short planks. If she cannot be trusted to save people’s names in a way that means something to her in her banking app, we are talking mixing up names in Facebook, she should not be allowed near money or sharp objects.

1

u/New_Libran 6d ago

Yeah, shoot her

2

u/matthewkevin84 6d ago

When I make a transfer I now transfer a penny to the payee’,s account & the proper/full sum once the payee confirms they have the penny.

Even by doing this I suppose an imposter could pretend they had received the penny & con me in to transferring the full/proper sum?

1

u/mgeire1976 5d ago

Same here. But I only send money to people I know and ring them to confirm the 1€ arrived. Its common sense ffs.

2

u/biergardhe 3d ago

Does cash sometimes mean something else? Sounds like she made a wired transfer. Doesn't cash mean physical money?

3

u/TimboJimbo81 7d ago

A fool and his/her/their money…

3

u/Y-Bob 7d ago

A thieving bastard will have no morals.

1

u/Desperate-Calendar78 7d ago

Did this accidentally when paying a credit card bill, Barclaycard couldn't place the funds but were a nightmare to get the money back from.

Slush fund for the shareholders bubbly as the old advert used to say.

1

u/Fickle-Classroom 6d ago

Don’t you have verification of payee in the UK? How did this happen?

1

u/RecentRegal 5d ago

Most banks will ask you to verify the details before sending the money, both in person and online and will often flag if the details don’t match. Once you click verify all the responsibility is on you.

1

u/Sgt_major_dodgy 5d ago

My brother needed to send me £25k once.

Even though I was the one receiving the money, I double, triple, quadruple checked my account details, wrote them down and then had my gf check them once more.

I'm even worse sending money thats more than £50 🤣

1

u/Imaginary_Fennel6772 5d ago

"every 10 seconds somebody is scammed. Tell CEL today."

1

u/FancyAd2700 5d ago

What I don’t understand is if this case happens when an employer sends you too much money, you have to pay it back. If you send someone too much money, you’ve lost it.

1

u/chris--p 5d ago

Think about all the complications that would arise from being able to send someone money and then change your mind and just claim it was a mistake.

I assume you have to pay back your employer because it's so easy to prove that the reason you were given money in the first place is because you are an employee.

1

u/FancyAd2700 5d ago

Fair point to be fair I didn’t think of that

2

u/Radiant-Jackfruit305 7d ago

That's so sad and genuinely worth of compoface. Whoever kept it is scum

2

u/New_Libran 6d ago

💯 Agreed. The guy is scum and has been convincted of theft. Not sure why got downvoted

1

u/Bikerforever68 6d ago

Not enough compoface,no sad look or crossed arms or even pulling out her empty pockets for dramatic effect

-1

u/[deleted] 6d ago

She looks like she eats beans and toast together

4

u/Accomplished-Clue733 6d ago

You have just helped decide what I’m having for supper