GLOBAL SUB-PRIME CRISIS

BANKILEAKS

Click on our Secret Library of Evidence ------>

    BANKILEAKS Secret Library

Loan Application Forms (LAF's)  

    Bank Emails to Brokers  

    Then Click on 'VIEW NOTEBOOK'

Join us on facebook
 

facebook3           facebook2 

BFCSA
MORTGAGE
DISTRESS SOS

What BFCSA Does...

BFCSA investigates fraud involving lenders, spruikers and financial planners worldwide.  Full Doc, Low Doc, No Doc loans, Lines of Credit and Buffer loans appear to be normal profit making financial products, however, these loans are set to implode within seven years.  For the past two decades, Ms Brailey, President of BFCSA (Inc), has been a tireless campaigner, championing the cause of older and low income people around the Globe who have fallen victim to banking and finance scams.  She has found that people of all ages are being targeted by Bankers offering faulty lending products. BFCSA warn that anyone who has signed up for one of these financial products, is in grave danger of losing their home.

Visitors

Articles View Hits
741130

Whistleblowers' Corner!

To all mortgage brokers, BDMs and loan approval officers! 
Pls Call Denise: 0401 642 344 

"Confidentiality is assured."

Cartoon Corner

Lighten your load today and "Laugh all the way to the bank!"

Denise Brailey

Led by award-winning consumer advocate Denise Brailey, BFCSA (Inc) are a group of people who are concerned about the appalling growth of Loan Fraud around the world. BFCSA (Inc) is a not for profit organisation in the spirit of global community concern and justice.

Click on the Cluster Map.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Login
    Login Login form

BFCSA: Banksters shift blame of Internet Cafe Trojan's to customers

Posted by on in BANKSTERS
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 2779
  • 2 Comments
  • Print

Banks trying to blame users for Web fraud.

Banks are trying to make the CUSTOMER pay if they are defrauded.

Summary: commentary When Sydney resident Tim Ireland returned home from a trip down the NSW South Coast, he was horrified to find that his entire savings account had been cleaned out.Reporting the anomaly to his bank, Ireland was told he "must have given his Internet banking password to someone".

 

By Brett Winterford | July 12, 2007

 When Sydney resident Tim Ireland returned home from a trip down the NSW South Coast, he was horrified to find that his entire savings account had been cleaned out.

Reporting the anomaly to his bank, Ireland was told he "must have given his Internet banking password to someone". He replied that it definitely wasn't the case. An investigation ensued -- and with the help of the Federal Police it was discovered that Ireland's account had been depleted courtesy of a keystroke-logging Trojan lurking on a PC he had used in a South Coast café during his trip.

The bank eventually refunded the money, wiped the resulting overdraft fees and -- after some wrangling -- waived the interest he'd paid on his credit card while the investigation took place.

To date, victims of Internet fraud in Australia have had much the same experience -- banks provide a guarantee that they will make up for any losses caused by the compromising of user accounts.

But in recent years, fraud-related losses have grown -- to at least AU$25 million a year according to the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC). There's a lot more financial pressure on banks to mitigate this risk.

So much so that across the Tasman, the New Zealand Banker's Association has revised its code of practice to make users potentially liable for amounts they are defrauded should the bank prove the user's defences (OS and security software) weren't up to scratch.

The Australian Bankers' Association (ABA) has assured customers that such a scenario won't happen here. The banking industry's position on liability has never changed, the association said, and the banks plan to continue to wear the risk.

But recent developments raise some questions about their commitment to staying this course.

The ABA reacted angrily earlier in the year after press reports suggested banks were responsible for lobbying ASIC to consider changes to liability in its pending review of the EFT (Electronic Funds Transfer) Code of Practice in Australia.

In its consultation paper, ASIC stated that "some industry representatives have proposed that users could potentially be made liable under the EFT Code for the full amount of losses from malicious code compromises of account access data unless they have 'minimum' (or sometimes 'adequate') equipment security."

Who might these "industry representatives" be? Banks, perhaps? Are there any other parties that would have something to gain from this scenario?

The language of this proposal is strikingly similar to the code approved in New Zealand.

A quick glance at the member base of both the NZ Banker's Association and ABA is also telling.

The ABA is made of up 25 banks -- the largest of which are Westpac, the ANZ, The Commonwealth Bank of Australia and National Australia Bank.

The member companies of New Zealand's Bankers' Association include Westpac, ANZ, The National Bank of NZ (also owned by the ANZ), ASB Bank (wholly owned by The Commonwealth Bank) and The Bank of New Zealand (wholly owned by National Australia Bank).

Aside from locally-owned Kiwibank and TSB Bank and a handful of internationals, it's an Aussie-owned affair across the Tasman.

This makes the ABA's position look somewhat compromised. Yes, its member banks say they won't make online banking users liable in Australia, but they are more than happy to try it out in New Zealand.

Security getting too expensive?Clearly, Internet banking fraud is a problem that needs to be contended with.

For some high-value banking customers, the solution is two-factor authentication -- a token-based system which strengthens the security of online banking by exponential degrees.

But the present thinking within the banking sector is that transferring liability to the user is an easier solution. Or perhaps a cheaper one -- as ASIC plainly states in its consultation paper, enhanced security measures such as two-factor authentication involves "significant costs" for banks. Distributing tokens to their whole online customer base is a cost the banks just won't wear.

In the meantime, it looks like our Kiwi neighbors are being used as lab rats in terms of passing liability on to the user.

Ireland is just one who hopes local banks don't follow their Kiwi counterparts. He said that if his bank hadn't eventually come to the party and covered the loss, he would have been in a "nightmare situation".

"It was just prior to Christmas and the amount taken was all the money I had in the world," he said. "I would have been left with absolutely no cash."

"What irked me most is that the banks don't make it clear to you that the onus is on you to [transact securely]," he said. "You assume that your bank is insured if someone walks in and holds the place up, why should online theft be any different?"

 

Last modified on
Rate this blog entry:

Comments

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 15 March 2013

    Good article written By Brett Winterford but it was back in July 2007 Quote "The Australian Bankers' Association (ABA) has assured customers that such a scenario won't happen here. The banking industry's position on liability has never changed, the association said, and the banks plan to continue to wear the risk."

    - Fast forward to 2013. What's the latest?

  • doyla66
    doyla66 Friday, 15 March 2013

    Thanks for finding this article for me Denise. I only went back to 2009, didn't have enough time to search further, too busy on other BFCSA matters.
    Hope others found it useful too.

Leave your comment

Guest Saturday, 26 September 2020