To be fair, people didn't withdraw funds, someone was able to set up a recurring transfer (direct debit) from his account to a charity. Which makes it useless for theft, since the thief would leave definite proof of their identity (receiving account number).
The best part, I think, is Clarkson's response:
Clarkson now says of the case: "Contrary to what I said at the time, we must go after the idiots who lost the [personal information] and stick cocktail sticks in their eyes until they beg for mercy."
Bank fraud frequently requires the crook to supply an account number to transfer the funds to. This is not a problem if the only activity on the account is:
1. Opened with a fake identity
2. Stolen funds received
3. Stolen funds transferred to a bank with (intentionally) poor record keeping, potentially bouncing around a few more times.
Wire transfers seem to be a big hole at the moment.
The best part, I think, is Clarkson's response:
Clarkson now says of the case: "Contrary to what I said at the time, we must go after the idiots who lost the [personal information] and stick cocktail sticks in their eyes until they beg for mercy."