Not for the first time, and unfortunately, based on the position adopted by the Bank Ombudsman (1), its clients appear to be guilty of being stupid while the Banks are absolved of any liability.
In a most recent case, Auckland businessman Deepak Udhani, was denied compensation for a $100,000 scam. Banking Ombudsman Nicola Sladden said she couldn’t compel banks to have specific fraud detection systems in place to protect customers.
“We therefore cannot find that
ASB’s fraud detection system should have detected the transactions as being
suspicious.”
Udhani told the Herald he
was shocked and deflated by the decision. In his opinion, the banking sector was failing
to protect customers and the Banking Ombudsman Scheme was not acting
independently.
Logic suggests that Bank
Customers have an obligation to themselves to operate their personal bank
accounts (and commercial) in a manner that affords them the protection that the
Banks put in place.
On this point, there appears
little room for dispute. Furthermore, the Banks rely on this as a factor to
defend themselves from allegations of inappropriate behaviour. However, not all
bank consumers are IT sophisticated which may derive from a variety of factors,
including but not necessarily limited to: (i) illness; (ii) age; (iii)
slow-witted; and (iv) avarice.
Today it seems the Banks operate
similarly to an insurance company where each claim appears to start with a
potential repudiation. Many New Zealanders will have been telephoned personally
by a bank or a credit card company to ask whether they have just purchased or
made the following withdrawal.
Predicated as these bank
enquiries may be on algorithms, they nevertheless demonstrate that Banks do
maintain a watch of your accounts and that they respond to IT generated
“alerts”. Probably at an additional cost, but they can do it and are able to, hold
back funds.
What to look for to
avoid a scam?
A regular modus operandi is for a
scammer offering an investment genuine or legitimate New Zealand based
investment scheme. Many targeted people conduct requisite due diligence
and the scheme appears bona fide.
Some then agree to invest funds,
so the scammer provides a New Zealand bank account for the transfer to be
made. The funds upon reaching the scammer’s New Zealand account aka
“transfer station”, are immediately transferred to an off shore account, then
transferred immediately again to an account likely in the Baltic States.
Several days later the consumer
realises they have been a victim of a fraud and complain to the Bank.
The Bank cites privacy and will
not provide details of the New Zealand account into which the scammed funds
were transferred. Nor, it seems do the bank police (invariably
former NZ Police officers – based on my recollection of former colleagues
looking for jobs after PERF from the police) seem to know what’s going on?
In the interim the funds are gone
and the account holder in New Zealand is fictious/evaporated.
Banks
Responsibilities.
How did a scammer set up a
“transfer station” aka in New Zealand? How did the stolen money get moved from
the “Transfer account” to a foreign account?
This is an absolute start point
for any internal bank investigators; as essential as being a scene detective at
a homicide and checking the toilet.
The same applies to telephone
cold calls. The originator is from a plethora of other countries, yet the
scammer is able to route their country through a New Zealand number. How
is that possible and not traceable?
Looking at the Ombudsman’s
response, does the Bank lose any obligation by its inability to provide a
secure and robust banking system with an ineffectual ‘know your customer’
obligations?
Surely those obligations are in
place to (i) protect the bank; and (ii) protect the consumer?
There are many more examples, but
isn’t it time that Banks and authorities took a moral and legal responsibility
to protect consumers.
Agencies and investigators
(private) are thwarted by large companies hiding behind the veil of
‘privacy’. What tosh.
Where are the NZ Police Fraud
Squad personnel? Issuing traffic offence
notices in high end social economic suburbs where it is known that
transgressors will pay their fines and won’t get out of the car and smash some
cop for issuing a ticket for 55 in a 50 zone?
Solution?
If Banks were found liable, Banks
would soon develop processes to protect the Bank and its consumers, without
whom, of course, Banks may become redundant.
Perhaps Banks might even find a job for an AI?
Or, back to cash and ‘caches
under the mattress.’ Maybe that is a good thing.
Ross Meurant BA MPP www.gena.co.nz.
Former Police Inspector VIP Security & Criminal Intelligence. Former Member
Parliament. Former Diplomatic Representative
3 comments:
Siggghhh.
Banks do have protections in place. But people operate their account and its their reaponsibility regarding who they transfer funds to..
Nanny cant do everything all the time.
The old adage of if its to good to be true it probably is needs to be remembered
As for NZ phone numbers routing overseas calls their is a legit business use for this and Telcos deprovision numbers when they are made aware of scamming via the number
People need to be more wary
Well, Trevs_elbow that's all well and good, but what really annoys me is the utter BS the cloak of 'privacy' touted by these banks is.
I found on a recent 'Statement' a withdrawal paid to an account holder in another bank with a 'reference' that meant absolutely nothing to me. I rang my bank and asked what more they could tell me of this transaction - nothing, other than it had been via their electronic service and therefore must have been authorised by me. I could pay a fee and they would look into it further, but given the amount involved (less than $50) they suggested I call the recipient's bank - I suspect knowing full-well I'd be given short shrift.
I rang that bank concerned and inquired as to the holder's name of that account number which would clearly assist me identifying it's likely bona fides or otherwise, but no, they couldn't disclose that for, you guessed it, "privacy" reasons.
What utter bollocks! Every invoice by every company I've seen in recent memory has their bank account number disclosed for all to see and nothing about keeping the invoice confidential for security reasons. Armed with a bank account number and a holder's name, just see how far you can get with that if you're intent on getting up to no good, assuming the recipient of such isn't a complete idiot, who would be taken in anyway.
But make life unnecessarily difficult and which assists aiding and abetting illegal activity, the banks do themselves and their clients no favours whatsoever.
This kind of nonsense needs to be addressed.
There is one major factor we all suffer from and that scammers trade on and that is Greed. Blinded by greed it is too easy to kid ourselves into a "good thing" because we want to believe it is a "good thing." Sadly banks have not yet learned how to control our own human nature.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.