Community

Nowadays, "Partial KYC" done by neobanks and fintechs does not even completely verify ID and Address but even "Full KYC" is not supposed to vet customer's character. ByTW, accounts opened for convicted criminals are KYCd. 

I agree with your analogy of driver-killer, just that the equivalent party in  the case a cybercrime is the Alleged Scammer, not Payee Bank, TELCO, et al.

It's not you being simple but that the term KYC is quite obfuscatory.

I'm covering liability in a follow on post but here's a spoiler: (1) KYC is not a character certificate (2) If banks can open accounts even for convicted criminals, how can they decline alleged scammers? (3) The scam involves not just Payee Bank but TELCO, mobile handset manufacturer, utility company with which the phone is charged, et al. If the other parties don't have any liability, neither should the Payee Bank. 

$2.7M fine. LOL.

Yet another case of regulators puffing up their chests and bragging about doing all kinds of things when all they have done is slap a fine that's so puny that it's a rounding error on the valuation of the fined party. 

Reminds me of the concluding line of a FORTUNE magazine article about the $200M fine levied on food giant Archer-Daniels-Midland 20+ years ago: "Not only does crime pay, it’s just the cost of doing business."

Since I predicted that The Death Of Cash Is At Least 190 Years Away, I'm not surprised that cash is not only alive and kicking but is seeing historically unprecedented levels of use. After all, it's only nine years since I made that prediction. 

But that shouldn't stop finsurgents from claiming that people want "Invisible Payments".

TY @Ed Adshead-Grant. 

IMO the role of Confirmation of Payee in preventing A2A RTP fraud / scam is exaggerated.

A typical scam is where Joe uses UPI / FPS / Zelle to buy something from Jane, and does not get what he ordered. The scam lies in the payee's motive and not her identity. As far as Joe is concerned, he is indeed paying the intended recipient. TBH, I don't see how CoP can prevent this scam. 

Keen to know of any ID-related scam that CoP can avert.

PS: I've heard a scenario where a scammer masquerades as a bank manager over a telephone call and asks the victim to transfer money. While CoP can prevent such a scam, TBH, I find that scenario to be contrived since, in my entire life, I've never ever got a call from any of my banks asking me to transfer money to it.

PPS: I'm aware of Business Email Compromise where Buyer needs to make a payment to Seller, Scammer spoofs the Seller's email address and inserts his own bank details in an email to the Buyer, who then makes the payment to the unintended recipient. CoP will help here but I'm not sure if BEC comes within the purview of APP Scam.

I thought CoP has been mandatory and live for nearly 2 years in UK banks?

Going by Wells Fargo et al, it's not that banks don't commit fraud but Fintechs lose trust in extremely lame ways that are obvious even to the average customer. 

PayTM Shows How Fintechs Can Lose Trust

I wish there were a more pleasant way to say this but this report is garbage. 

There are ~300M users of digital payments in India, which is 300M / 1.3B ~ 24% of the country's population. There's no way on earth that 41% of India's population could have been victims of online payment fraud.   

When I last checked, UPI fraud was 0.0267% by processed value.

Despite regulation in EU, there have been onerous certification requirements and stonewalling on scope of API, as a result of which there are only 5M users.

OTOH, after patronizing case-to-case action by US banks in response to customer demand, USA has 80M users of Open Finance.  

End of the day results count. It's amply clear that free market forces have achieved a lot more than regulatory intervention.

As the name suggests, "Authorized Push Payment" is authorized i.e. it is not Unauthorized i.e it's not fraud but scam. I love the way Zelle, the A2A RTP MOP of USA, makes a crystal clear distinction between the two. While banks are liable for fraud, payors must be held liable for scam.