Good news…! Worlds first regulation The UK government will force banks to compensate scam victims under a world-first scheme that kicks off next year — and Australia could follow suit.
Welcome to the Community @yeskay,
Your new topic continues a long closed one for reference
1 Like
Not necessarily. You should probably review the existing discussion, which is linked in the previous post.
A somewhat belated article comparing our proposed light touch with the heavier touches being implemented in other countries. The difference may be societal with Australians having a more business friendly mindset. There has been discussion on the Community on why should the banks pay, yet the banks have not exactly been ‘tightening their ship’ just relying on education. That apparently is failing because the sophistication of modern scammers has gone from strength to strength in their ability to impersonate banks.
In addition to the banks being put into the firing line, addressing how a scammer can impersonate the callerID of a legitimate business is overdue although some progress is evident. A bit too late for those already scammed.
2 Likes
I found that article terribly deficient.
If Peter Martin, the Australian resident, wants to say “I have decided that the best solution is X and I am going to advocate for it” then that is 100% fine.
If Peter Martin, a journalist (former now?), wants to do the same then that is not fine. A journalist has an obligation to provide balance, to approach a party with a different (opposing) perspective, to provide both sides of the argument.
I think the problem here is that the ABC pads its news site out with copies of articles from The Conversation which may basically be opinion pieces, not journalism.
The article quotes the responsible government minister as saying why the government is not doing what you imply should be done. That doesn’t as such contradict what you are saying but maybe that is the most direct indication of the government’s thinking.
Actually reading the article though should leave you tearing your hair out at the, shall I say, naivety of some bank customers.
My recent experience with having my legitimate transaction blocked for over 4 days because the bank thought it was protecting me from a scam leaves me very concerned about the future if the government went down the UK road. I mean this is how bad it is when the banks aren’t even financially on the hook if I get scammed. Imagine how bad it would be if the banks were on the hook.
I have my own list of “I have decided that the best solution is X and I am going to advocate for it” but this has been well-covered over several different topics in this forum so probably not much point going over it again.
2 Likes
And as your experience shows, if the banks were held liable for losses incured in their customer’s money transfers gone bad, then say goodbye to ‘pay anyone’. Or at least a time delay in actual transfer, or a fee for service to check the recipient. Maybe both.
2 Likes
The latest. A hacker turned cyber-security expert was interviewed and his opinion was some of it was probably unrealistic, overall it is a step in the right direction. A key part of his opinion is when banks profits could suffer they start to pay attention, and also have the resources for class actions against big tech that very few individuals could even dream of having available.
1 Like
And on a lighter (and more positive) note: Scammers demanded $10,000 from Josh’s grandma so he made a movie where she hunts them down - ABC News
1 Like
Let’s not get too far ahead in this measure loudly trumpeted by the Gov. It is just a proposal, open for public comment and submissions.
Nowhere near what may or may not be introduced into Parliament for debate as a proposed law. Let alone passing through both houses without major changes.
I can see vested interests gutting it and will end up as just another piece of useless legislation gathering dust on some shelf in Canberra.
2 Likes
Worth another look?
The Govt currently opposes delivering the community representative supported model of UK legislation.
‘Growing backlash over new draft scam laws as consumer groups unite to condemn government victim compo proposal - ABC News
It is also opposed by the banks who argue it would make Australia a honey pot for scammers by reducing personal responsibility.
But Ms Tonkin said Australia’s billions in annual losses show it is already a honey pot.
“That is an eye watering and entirely unacceptable amount of money,” she said.
The amount the banks are saying is “NOT a Honey Pot”.
Consumer groups say that’s left victims to carry a heavy burden – last year scam losses were $2.74 billion, according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission.
Consumers get caught out in many different ways.
Suggestions that the solution is to better educate consumers looks to be transferring the sole responsibility to the consumer. The capacity of consumers to learn and to acquire skills varies greatly.
- How does one determine what level of achievement is acceptable, 90%, 95%, 99.999%?
- If the answer is less than 100%, is the penalty for those who do not achieve full marks to be financially disadvantaged - penalised?
- Should those members of our community be excluded from having access to digital financial services?
1 Like
If banks become more liable for money lost through money transfers, we should also accept that banks will crack down on how they provide such facilities.
1 Like
There was an interesting report on the ABC’s The Business yesterday. It was a marked difference in how Australia was seen as an attractive target for scammers compared to the USA because of the laxity of action taken by the AFP in response to scammers and how the FBI took action.
First link is to the News Radio website, the second to the MSN News website
As has been noted previously by others, the UK system works more in favour of victims than does ours. A report that has some percentages on the differences between the UK and others. It may be paywalled, sometimes it does allow a view.
https://www.ft.com/content/bbe888ac-8888-40f6-9fb5-d89150025d36
Some changes occurring in the UK
2 Likes
[fill in your favourite oversight agency] that follows a long history prioritising education rather than prosecution. That accounts for the minimalist fines usually done by agreement with the accused and only in the most egregious circumstances.
The comparative jurisdictions do not usually take business viability into consideration. Their premise is a business that does the wrong thing does not necessarily deserve to be enabled to continue through minimalist interventions/fines. If the business is strong enough it might only be wounded. Otherwise victims might see something akin to restitution or at least some sense of justice.
2 Likes
This is a misleading figure though because the majority of that is investment scams, where the customer is completely openly and voluntarily being an idiot and where it is much, much more difficult for the bank to interfere.
Could the government address that? Probably yes but it goes well beyond the banking sector to investment more generally.
Well, yes, but that doesn’t preclude the possibility that with Australia a greater honey pot, the amount rises to, say, $3b per year.
In reality, experience suggests that most measures will have only short term effects until scammers adapt to the new reality.
The fundamental problem that I have with making banks responsible is that it doesn’t try to stop scams at source (prevent them in the first place) but just shifts the scam victim from being the customer to being the bank.
Does the government have any ideas for reducing the number of successful scams or reducing the total dollar value?
Various ideas that wouldn’t be too onerous on customers or on banks have been discussed countless times in this forum. So if the government eventually lands on just making banks the victims then that says that the government is out of ideas and/or isn’t prepared to listen to people who do have ideas.
Not to mention my own incredible hassle (countless phone calls, hours on the phone) trying to make a couple of transactions recently. It has already started and the government hasn’t even made any changes.
1 Like
The following appears to be promoting a different vision and why one should feel this bank is watching your back to ensure the bad actors don’t outwit the customer. Although what the bank is really promising >>>>?
What might potential and exisiting customers take away from the marketing including uncertain messaging of the imaging in TV commercials? A more purposeful version of what is on offer. Same origin, without some of the less precise and previously referenced advertising campaign (aka Spin Cycle).
2 Likes
It will be interesting to see how it goes. An elderly acquaintance was recently scammed by a ‘your computer has a virus’ and she allowed the scammer to remote into the PC. After a few minutes she realised it was a scam, cut it off and immediately contacted Bendigo bank expecting the transfers to be blocked. I acknowledge it could have been too late by then with Osko real time, but…
…after the investigation Bendigo declined the dispute concluding the bogus withdrawals/charges were hers - ostensibly because they originated from her PC. This situation might be ongoing and eventually resolved but is indicative of the real world, not the legislated world.
1 Like
Just for a laugh … what happens if banks start to operate an insurance-like scheme, except that the banks would be obliged to offer the insurance to all customers, no matter what the risk? (Banks could choose to self-insure their own risk or get someone else to take on the risk, for a fee of course - which cost would ultimately be paid for by customers as a whole either way.)
It may come to that. Except in the form of a fee to do money transfers, which is the prime cause of money lost due to scams.
Use transfer securely without problems, and maybe the fee may be waived in time. Make complaints about transfers going wrong, and one may find the fee raised a lot to reflect a bank’s risk in allowing certain customers to use money transfer. Or maybe just blocking the facility full stop.
Not unlike most insurance.
