I’ve had bank accounts with at least 8 different banks and none of them would let me transfer $40,000 in one day, so how the heck did the scammer even pull that one off? I prefer Pay Anyone to PayID for the privacy. I don’t particularly want anyone and everyone knowing my personal email address as that just leads to even more scams. Just watch an episode of Catfish to see what nefarious activities PayID can facilitate!
I am very sure that scammers would heartily agree with you, and prefer ‘pay anyone’ rather than PayID. For the hiding of their true identities and relying on non-verification of the ownership of bank accounts at money transfer time.
Btw, what has an American pseudo reality show about dating sites got to do with Australia’s New Payments Platform?
Three accounts used as examples for a reply, one is limited to $20,000 a day by default but can be upped to $100,000 for the remainder of a day or the default can be permanently set lower by the account holder. Another bank recently changed from ‘account balance’ to $100,000 per day if using their app and authenticator but if more is required a withdrawal form or signed hardcopy request can be lodged for the transfer. A third bank allows their customers to nominate specific destination accounts for up to $250,000 per day.
Without the ability to transfer large amounts even as a special case buying a property or say 10,000 shares of WOW ($37.75 last close, not to be taken as a recommendation) would be challenging. Many may need to plan multi-days of transfers ahead while others may only need to ring their bank or drop into one of their elusive branches. I can even imagine being asked if there is a fax machine available to send a form.
3 Likes
This doesn’t answer the ‘should’ but one good news story, possibly from damage control after their lapses?
5 Likes
Not really. Good news for the customer. Not good news for the bank.
It is important to highlight that: this just transfers the scam from one party to another. It does not reduce scams. The bank got scammed out of $460,000.
Maybe. The article gives some details as to why the bank treated this customer as the exception rather than the rule. It just goes to show though how devious the scammers are.
Even so, I think it is a pertinent story for the bigger picture. With an ageing population, we are facing a tsunami of dementia - and that requires a whole-of-government response. The bank can hardly be expected to know that a customer is showing early signs of dementia, or even worse - and there would be significant privacy issues for the bank to know via some other means. Even if the customer has activated a Power of Attorney, the bank won’t necessarily know that the customer has been formally diagnosed with dementia.
I think it opens up another angle i.e. how we can better protect the accounts of those who have dementia. It’s probably not the majority of the problem though.
4 Likes
It is also missing some key information. One can only suspect the bank found it was negligent for some undisclosed reason.
2 Likes
That was my impression. Somewhere between … the bank stopped the customer’s account when the first few dodgy transactions were detected by the bank1 … and the bank reactivated the account (was persuaded to do so, perhaps socially engineered).
1 You can argue about whether this in general is the right thing to do but clearly in this case it was, in practice, the right thing to do - and it is a real pity that the account was then reactivated.
3 Likes
The bank could also have been aware of the account holder’s dementia… meaning the account may have had other restrictions such as actions requiring secondary party approval (such as under a financial management order).
Knowing the full circumstances is useful, otherwise many will think the banks will cover them under any circumstances.
Unfortunately we might never know.
3 Likes
Commonwealth Bank ramps up anti-scam technology for customers
CBA on Thursday detailed two types of technology it is deploying to combat scammers: Scam Indicator, which it built with Telstra and uses algorithms to identify potential scam phone calls, and NameCheck, which verifies account details for customers before they pay someone.
2 Likes
Some follow up on this issue. It’s a relatively basic check banks aren’t doing to prevent scams:
2 Likes
Clearly the author of this pathetic article has never heard of the banking new payments platform.
Want to comment @AndyKollmorgen
Known as PAYID. It has been around a while now, and banks have spent big money to implement the change.
But yet, we get the ‘bash the banks’ rather than anything to prompt money transfer users to get on board with more secure money transfer methods.
Thanks for your comments. We are aware of PAY ID, an important and commendable system for verifying that relatively low-value and often continual payments are going to the right person. A confirmation of payee system is another matter, which is why the ACCC is calling for its industrywide adoption, and why three of the big four banks have implemented their own systems outside of PAY ID, and why the ABA says its getting on board with an industrywide system. A confirmation of payee system would help prevent one-off large value payments to scammers in ways that PAY ID would not.
3 Likes
So rather than move forward to the new payments plaform, the NPP, we keep using the ‘pay anyone’ system and just rely on the banking system to verify payee details before a transfer is done?
Now you say that confirmation of a payee system is another matter. That is what NPP addresses. That was its design point.
In what way is NPP not up to the job of secure money transfer? In your consideration.
I think the article should at least mention Pay Id - as an alternative to transferring to a meaningless BSB and account number, and then hoping that the transaction does or does not fail. The article should contrast how Pay Id works with how BSB+account number name checking works.
I’ve said it before but I’ll say it again: Transferring to BSB+account number should just be phased out (i.e. ultimately banned). That will solve the problem simply.
3 Likes
I note that in the latest missive from my bank telling me how I can keep myself safe from scams, it specifically suggests using PayID - because PayID shows you the account name before you submit the transaction. In that respect it works like BPAY.
1 Like
I scanned a number of invoices regular and once off that I pay by EFT and every one has BSB+Account, many show BPay details, and zero show a PayID. It is not just the banks making it more difficult than it need be?
3 Likes
I discovered PayID 5 years or so ago, and have been interested to observe since then that none of the small/smallish businesses we deal with (such as tradies) have taken up PayID or were even aware of its existence.
PayID to ABN would seem to be ideal for such businesses. Why don’t they know about and use it?
2 Likes
According to this list only 5 of 80 Australian banks do not support PayID and they are all small fish.
If using PayID is a panacea it does not look like the banks are standing in the way. I have not checked all 75 but my bank does encourage account holders, personal and business, to have PayID.
How many of us have a PayID? I don’t. How many have ever contacted friends, relatives or business connections that we might want to send money to and talked about the idea? I haven’t. My children and I all have the others’ account details and have used them so “Hi Mum” is not going anywhere.
Given the ways that people fall for scams is it feasible to start an education campaign along these lines?
Before you send money to that voice you don’t know on the phone who has fed you a scary story that you don’t know anything about, remember to insist they give you PayID details not BSB and account before you give them money.
If not what would it take?
1 Like
PayID is about details registered by a receiver of money, and then can be used by a sender.
I just don’t think there is enough push on businesses to set up a PayID. It doesn’t cost anything.
For my part, whenever I get an invoice from some business that has a money transfer option, I ask what is the PayID? Not interested in this dodgy BSB-Account number stuff.
I’ve noticed the same. There needs to be pressure on payees, which is why I think the banks, mandated by the government, should announce an end-date for transferring to BSB+account.
However
BPAY is fine. It works the same as PayID in this respect. So any payee that offers BPAY does not need to offer PayID as well.
I guess the onus is also on us, as payers, to ask whether they offer PayID. That will create awareness if nothing else.
I have a couple of lamers that I, with regularity, have to pay to BSB+account. I will hassle them both. Maybe that will shed light on the question that @isopeda asks.
This.
1 Like
