UK banking losses due to fraud in the first half of 2008 hit £301.7m compared to £263.6m in the same period last year, according to the latest figures from UK banking association APACS. Fraud abroad made up 40 per cent of total card fraud losses reaching £121.2m in the period, up 11 per cent of the £108.8m lost last year. That …
Errr.... no ?
"Once the European banking industry meets its target on the roll-out of plastic cards and readers that rely on chip-based technology - due to be completed by 2010 - this type of fast-growing scam will be contained, APACS predicts."
Africa rolling out many CnP terminals, is it ?
As you can see bank fraud is small potatoes compared to the losses generated by bad lending and thus it comes to pass to fix the problem they merely increase the fees and charges on all accounts to cover both and don't bother to upgrade the systems for better security , so the paying punter compensates for the pond scum far more then you think , for banks are not in the charity business as we all know .
Cost of false positives
Have you as a legitimate credit card holder with money in hte bank ever had a transactions turned down?
I can assure you it is embarassing, inconvenient and annoying.
The credit card industry cannot apply fraud controls too strictly or thier product becomes worthless. I have dropped at least one card company in the past because thier "Artificial Stupidity" based fraud detection viewed booking an airline ticket on the last plane home as "uncharacteristic spending".
reasonable producivity gains the villains
The problem with chip and pin
The biggest issue with Chip and Pin is that it moves the responsibility for fraud onto the card holder and away from the bank. If a chip and pin transaction occurs fraudulently (like recent cases where fraudsters were skimming card and pin details from altered machines), the banks claim that chip and pin is secure and you must have written your pin down. In reality, you are still covered by the banking code, but if you don't know this, the bank's first response can mean you drop it and eat the loss.
haha @ Card Smart
Be Card Smart Online – which is aimed at providing further guidance and advice to help consumers stay safe online
hangon the bank and governments are rolling out unecrypted insecure RFID chipped passports and bank cards.
And they want to teach us how to be smart ?
Comeon send them on a course preferably how to get hacked via RFID for dummies
Banks don't care
Why bother with effective security?
Like bad lending practices, someone else pays for the banks losses/shortfalls.
Ever see a poor banker?
This article should be named retail fraud, not bank fraud.
The bank does not absorb the loss, the retailer does (at least with card not present). So I don't know what the "cost to the bank" could be...
Internet, mail order, and telephone order are "card not present" transactions. If a credit card customer has their account stolen or "says" that they did not make a purchase, it goes like this:
1. The bank deducts the disputed amount from the retailer's bank account.
2. The bank sends a notification letter the the internet retailer. They demand a signed and imprinted receipt of the transaction from the retailer. (for physical goods, a signed delivery receipt MAY be ok)
3. The internet retailer can not provide this imprint, so they lose the dispute.
4. The bank may deduct an addition "chargeback fee" from the retailer's bank account. This is usually about the same cost as a bounced check, a $20 - $50 fee.