Action Fraud warns of fraudulent anti-fraud warnings posing as Action Fraud Fraudsters are phishing for what remains in fraud victims' bank accounts under the guise of British anti-fraud campaign Action Fraud. An email using the City of London Police logo – Action Fraud works closely with it – has circulated offering free money from the Fraud Intelligence Unit and National Fraud Intelligence bureau. …
What is so frustrating is that the people being targeted are some of the most vulnerable, and they are more likely to fall for it because every Tom, Dick and Harry company representative rings up and asks for your personal information to 'pass security.' How can we expect people to not fall for this kind of thing when companies have such ridiculously bad practices (most of these are sales calls so it is entirely profit driven).
Rules of thumb should be...
1) NEVER answer 'security' questions when receiving an unsolicited phone call.
2) If a company calls up to speak to someone about something urgent (no sales calls allowed) they should be advising the person to call them back using the contact numbers they already have!
When companies start using better practices and educating their customers, their customers are less likely to be susceptible to fraud.
I have a much easier method.
Don't answer the phone.
The amount of times people like banks call me is negligible. If they need me, they'll be persistent. And then I will take the company name, if nothing else than to complain if it is just a sales call, and then I RING THEM on their main numbers. It's a simple rule, but old people seem to be frightened of missing a phone call for reasons I cannot fathom. No bank is going to close your account or whatever without sending you a letter if they couldn't get in touch (and even then, they'll confirm in writing).
I can honestly say I haven't needed to speak to my bank in years. I have a landline but it basically never rings. Everything is done on mobile (blocked if you don't give Caller ID, Googled before I answer if you do) or online.
And, sorry, but banks still need to cater - especially where older people are concerned - for those not online, not in the mobile generation, those without a phone, etc.
And the older generation are no longer the tech-less generations. My ex-father-in-law is in his 60's and has smartphone, laptop, Twitter, publishes his books on Kindle, emails, etc. It's far from the techless generation before him that had never touched a computer. And as we go forward, the next generation of elderly are going to be those who are 40-something now who are all on Facebook, etc.
You cannot instill common sense. That's another matter entirely. But because you can't instill it there's nothing you can do for those people.
Just stop answering the phone to people you don't know. You wouldn't answer an unknown Skype account or open an unknown email attachment, why is it different for phones?
The problem is bank's ludicrously bad 'fraud detection' requires you to answer the phone otherwise they block all your cards because you apparently buying the same things you do every month is somehow suspicious.
You get a call from mumbai from someone with an accent so thick you can barely work out who they're from, demanding private information for 'security' and if you fail to answer correctly good luck spending any money for a whille.
It's a real concern. Banks should be hauled over the coals for it, as it not only encourages - even requires - behaviour that makes you vulnerable to fraud, they don't offer any alternatives - A simple text saying 'call the number on the back of your card' would suffice, but nope..
You have a business phone.
You have a personal phone.
The business phone will only be used by the back for your business accounts. Make sure that you always dial for that account. Anyone dialling the business phone isn't going to be able to scam you into thinking that your personal account is at risk.
Your personal phone? Just don't answer it.
And in many of these fraud cases the banks wriggle away too easily, as often not showing due diligence IMHO.
Your card gets suspended until you can be contacted because it's been used a several times in a small time window hundreds of miles away from where you normally use it (holiday) - annoying but at least gives you hope they might care about fraud.
Yet these fraudsters get people to transfer significant sums (thousand to tens of thousands of pounds) out of their funds & not the slightest red flag from the banks even though the defrauded customer has never transferred to these accounts previously (& often customer may have a very low rate of activity on their account(s)).
Are you not aware of the real purpose of Chip & PIN?
The updated agreements (and there were NO alternative agreements you could sign) were stated such that if the transaction uses the PIN, it's guaranteed and by default YOUR FAULT if its fraudulent.
So much so that they just charge the merchant who has little-to-no way to contest it at all. Basically they pay out the money, you pay for it, and the merchant has to suffer the loss if it's found to be fraudulent and sucked back out of their account. Plus fees.
As such, they have zero incentive to stop fraud nowadays as they aren't paying for it - the merchants are liable for losses. Now imagine you have rogue people who "authorise" transactions with the correct PIN (via their friends or themselves) and then claim it back as fraudulent. They get the goods. They get the money back. The banks do nothing. The merchants suffer the loss and have to prove fraud.
All since the new agreements were shoe-horned into the Chip & PIN deployment. Do you think the bank cares nowadays, especially where almost everyone buys from abroad lots over the course of a year even if they don't realise it (Amazon, eBay, Microsoft Ireland, Apple Ireland, Google Ireland, Paypal, etc.). Rather than just stop, they let the transactions through by default because it costs the bank NOTHING.
Using Chip & PIN means that both the customer and the card were physically present at the point payment was taken.
So what type of fraud are you talking about? Walking into John Lewis, buying an expensive TV, and then invoking a chargeback as if someone else had used your card without your permission? You'll have a hard time pulling that off.
"... a small time window hundreds of miles away from where you normally use it ..."
One Friday evening, I drove from work to within two miles of my home then exercised my credit card by filling up my tank with petrol, then bought some food from the supermarket around the corner from where I live and decided to buy some cigarettes from the tobacco counter there. That was the straw that broke the camel's back. The cigarette transaction was blocked and guy on the counter was told to phone a special number and said he had to destroy my credit card unless I could talk to the man on the phone and answer some questions. Apparently my use of the card was 'suspicious'.
Maybe the guy on the 'baccy counter was the sort (like me) who pays cash as much as possible, has an instant visceral hatred for people who use a card to pay for £7 of goods , and just wanted to make your life miserable ?
[Nothing personal - just stuck in the office on a sunny day, with a cold, and feeling misanthropic !]
Working from home several days a week, I'm aghast at the number of calls to my home phone number per day.
What I'm going to do is get a telephone recording device and answer thus.
"Serious Fraud Office, John speaking, how may I help you?" and see where the conversation goes from there.
Action Fraud has been informed of fraudulent Action Fraud warnings of fraudulent anti-fraud warnings posing as Action Fraud. If you have received
fraudulent Action Fraud warnings of fraudulent anti-fraud warnings posing as Action Fraud then please contact Action Fraud at therealactionfraud@actionfraud.ru and provide your name, address, birth date, account number, pet names, the make of your first car and your grandmother's maiden name.
Thank you for helping us help you help us combat fraudulent warnings of fraudulent anti-fraud warnings posting fraudulently as anti-fraud organizations.
After the total silence from Action Fraud when contacted about a large value, large number of people and risk of harm to victime, I have to assume there is no crime serious enough for the real Action Fraud to respond to, and therefore any contact claiming to be from Action Fraud has to be fraudulent
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
