By Aisha Dow
Bank impersonation scammers have targeted more than 8000 Australians this year, but the country’s consumer watchdog refuses to disclose which banks and customers have been most affected, fearing backlash.
Partially censored data suggests fraudsters find certain banks much easier targets than others.
Laura Embry (right) is one of the thousands of Australians who has fallen victim to sophisticated scammers. Her father, Garry, is outraged at how Laura has been treated.Credit: Simon Schluter
Close to 3000 customers of one unnamed Australian bank have reported bank impersonation scams in the first nine months of this year. In contrast, there are several banks whose customers haven’t lost a single cent to scammers masquerading as their workers.
The data comes from reports made by the public to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission’s Scamwatch which, according to its website, should be used to “warn the community of new or emerging scams”. Scamwatch says one in three scams goes unreported by members of the public, indicating the number of affected Australians could be much higher.
However, the ACCC has repeatedly rejected requests to identify the banks whose customers have been falling victim to impersonation scams in their hundreds, instead redacting the names of the institutions from the released data.
The ACCC, in response to a freedom of information request, argued that disclosing the information could make it harder for its National Anti-Scam Centre to obtain confidential information.
“I have taken account of the interest in public administration and transparency, and the interests of the third parties [banks] in the document requested,” the FOI decision said.
“I have given more weight to the fact that this material has been provided on a voluntary basis, and that disclosure is likely to prejudice the ability of the National Anti-Scam Centre to obtain similar information on a voluntary basis in the future. The public interest in having the functions of the National Anti-Scam Centre continue to perform its functions is important.”
Consumer Action Law Centre chief executive Stephanie Tonkin said she did not understand the reasoning for not making the data public.
It is bank customers who are overwhelmingly left to pick up the bill for scam losses.
Ahead of planned scam-prevention reforms, big four banks reimburse only 7 per cent of scam losses, while smaller banks reimburse an even smaller proportion of stolen funds.
Tonkin said given the “absence of help for people who have been scammed”, the information could help prevent people falling victim to a scam, or realising they had been scammed sooner.
A National Anti-Scam Centre spokesperson said, in some instances, the ACCC would provide information identifying a specific entity, such as a bank, as they did in February when they alerted the public to a sophisticated bank impersonation scam which targeted hundreds of HSBC customers for at least 10 months from mid-2023.
“This is considered on a case-by-case basis and generally occurs where there is a clear and identified concern,” the spokesperson said.
There have been 8274 bank impersonation scams reported between January and September this year, a 25 per cent increase on the 6582 reported over the same period in 2023. Overall losses from these scams have fallen, from $14.98 million to $9.35 million.
Among the thousands of impacted Australians is Melbourne woman Laura Embry. The 27-year-old had $38,600 stolen in July last year when a scammer posing as a member of Bendigo Bank’s “financial crimes team” called her warning that her account had been compromised.
The conwoman, who had a soft British accent, was armed with Laura’s account number and details of pending transactions.
Laura, a communication specialist for a not-for-profit organisation, was initially sceptical, asking the woman how she could be sure she was speaking to the right person.
Text messages sent to Laura Embry by bank impersonation scammers.
But the scammer was able to send her messages from Bendigo Bank’s genuine 1300 number, seemingly confirming the phone call was legitimate, and convinced her to transfer her money into new accounts she was told were held in her name.
Laura grew suspicious after the scammer asked her for a code. She hung up and called Bendigo Bank directly. However, because the payments had been made via OSKO, which allows money to be transferred almost instantly, the money had left Laura’s account and could not be retrieved.
While Bendigo Bank reimbursed Laura $8800 after it was revealed they had failed to issue a recall request for one of the transfers to the scammers, she remains $29,800 out of pocket. The Australian Financial Complaints Authority found in favour of the bank, which ruled the transfers were authorised.
The stolen money included an inheritance from Laura’s grandparents, which she had been saving for a house deposit. Laura said while the scam took a clear financial toll, the emotional impact, including her distress over the bank’s lack of support, had been worse.
“My Papa worked very hard to make sure that there was something left over for the grandkids, and so did Granny. She was always very vocal while she was alive that there would be something for the grandkids, and she was very passionate about that. So for that to go is just deeply devastating.”
Laura’s father, retired school principal Garry Embry, has been advocating on her behalf. He argues the bank failed in its duty of care to his daughter by allowing instant transfers to new accounts when they knew it was being exploited by criminals.
“If there was but a 12-hour delay in the transfer of funds, all of Laura’s funds could have been retrieved, yet they choose to use the OSKO system,” he said.
The Australian Financial Complaints Authority noted in its findings it was unable to consider the adequacy of Bendigo Bank’s fraud-detection system or its commercial decision to use the OSKO real-time payment system.
Garry Embry argues Australians have the right to know which banks are being impersonated by scammers and to what extent. He recalled each time he’d been into his local branch to discuss his daughter’s scam, tellers said there had been other similar scams reported about the same time.
The bank declined to comment on the case and its decision to allow OSKO payments, however, a Bendigo and Adelaide Bank spokesperson said it had recently introduced a new “NameCheck” system, helping pick up cases where people might be sending money to an account that was not the intended recipient.
“Bendigo Bank attempts to recover funds lost to scams wherever possible and, it goes without saying, when the bank is at fault, we will reimburse customers for the loss of funds,” the spokesperson said.
Start the day with a summary of the day’s most important and interesting stories, analysis and insights. Sign up for our Morning Edition newsletter.