Community

OK I get the point that the scammers are very good at what they do, they sound very credible and trick consumers. Reimbursement is indeed patchy when the originating bank questions what more the consumer could/should have dome. However the new UK Fraud Strategy published yesterday makes no reference to pursuing the financial institution that set up the receiving account, the £60k in this news item. We are not punishing banks with poor AML/KYC checks. Follow the money.

So which organisation is Which? suggesting should reimburse the cardholder who was the subject of an APP fraud scam? The bank that hosts the customer's account from which the monies were taken with the cardholder's agreement, or the financial institution who opended the account that receievd the fraudulent funds, i.e. the fraudster. The challenge is we are not preventing APP scam issues, we are just shifting liability from a customer who was "tricked' to their own bank.

Regretably, we have recognised the potential for adverse impact on both merchants and card users as the result of SCA and EMV3DS2.x. Different scheme approaches, different timelines, complex rules and technical requirements, unanswered questions put to the EBA and still managing signficant uncertainty on rules, specifications and technology options. This was supposed to drive greater security, convenience, transparency and user confidence. What have we let loose on payments in Europe?