Banks’ slow response against card fraud

Late last year, I became a victim of credit card fraud. On the afternoon of Sept. 25, a man called me on my mobile phone, identified himself as someone from my bank, then proceeded to tell me that they had detected suspicious activity on my credit cards and required my participation to prevent my account from being hacked.

I am a senior citizen and admittedly confused by the workings of modern banking. On that day I could think of nothing but the fear of having my credit cards maxed out by a thief. Unwittingly, I disclosed to this man the account details of my two credit cards and the OTPs sent to my number, believing that he needed this information to safeguard my cards from unauthorized use. He then inquired if I owned credit cards issued by other banks, and claimed that he could also use their system to secure the rest of my cards from the hacker. I was so panicked by this time that I readily provided the details and OTPs of my other credit cards as well.

When it dawned on me that the whole thing was a scam, I reported the incident to the hotlines of the said banks the very next day. I was informed by the bank representatives I spoke to that all the transactions were to www.razer.com, with the single amount of $431.99 being charged multiple times, each occurring just minutes apart, and that these transactions had not yet been posted. I asked them if these charges could be reversed now that I had promptly advised them of the fraud, but of all the banks involved, only one granted my request. I received welcome news of the reversal of the charges when I called to check on the status of my case on Sept. 28.

The rest of the banks, of whom I have been a dutiful client all these years, did not seem to think that my predicament was of any immediate concern. Two told me to fill out and submit a dispute form; one told me they would investigate my case.

I did not hear from another bank until Oct. 6, when I received an email informing me that based on their investigation, the online transactions had been approved on a 3D secure merchant wherein OTPs had been entered during the purchase, and therefore my disputed transactions were deemed valid.

I have since had to contend with repeated demands for payment coupled with offers of five-year installment terms, and politely-worded threats of having my savings and other holdings garnished in their favor. My attempts to seek assistance from the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas and the PNP Anti-Cybercrime Unit have so far yielded no promising results, as their response has been slow and ineffectual.

I highly commend Unionbank for the outstanding security measures they have in place to protect clients from online fraud. Their system detected the fraudulent transactions by the scammer’s fourth attempt and immediately blocked my account. My calling them confirmed the fraud and prompted the reversal of the transactions, even if these had all been authenticated by OTPs.

Why couldn’t other banks do the same? At the time I first reported the fraudulent transactions, they themselves informed me that these charges were still floating. It’s very clear to me that by giving them early notice of the fraud, I had given them ample time and good reason to abort these charges at once. It baffles me that they chose to give me the runaround instead, and allowed these transactions to be posted without contest.

CELIA CARLOS
[email protected]