Feeds

UK card fraud hits £505m

Online losses swell 24 per cent

  • alert
  • submit to reddit

Security for virtualized datacentres

the banking industry hopes that losses in future will be contained by schemes such as Chip and PIN.

UK losses to credit card fraud soared last year to £504m, up 20 per cent on 2003, according to the annual report by banking organisation APACS.

Card-not-present fraud (CNP) continues to be the biggest single type of fraud tup by 24 per cent to £150.8m in 2004). APACS said these losses grew in line with the growth of businesses now offering transactions made by phone, fax or online. Identity theft (fraudulent applications and account takeover) was up 22 per cent, but accounted for only £36.9m in losses.

Counterfeit (skimmed/cloned) cards accounted for losses of £129.7m (up 17 per cent) while stolen or lost plastic is blamed for £114.4m in fraudulent transactions, many of which took place at cash machines. Fraud at UK cash machines grew by 81 per cent to £74.6m in 2004, up from £41.1m in 2003.

Chip and SPIN

Altogether fraud on lost and stolen cards and counterfeit cards accounted for almost half (48 per cent) of all losses. APACS reckons that the widespread use of chip and PIN will stem these losses, achieving the results of similar schemes in continental Europe. However online anti-fraud organisation Early Warning reckons Chip and PIN is has less to do with reducing fraud and more to do with card firms offloading their liabilities to merchants in cases of theft. Chip and PIN will merely displace credit card fraud onto the internet rather than reducing overall losses, the organisation says.

Early Warning managing director Andrew Goodwill said: “Our figures very much back up the view that Chip & PIN is simply displacing the fraud problem into CNP sales channels rather than solving the problem per se. When the fraud is perpetrated in this way, the retailer is fully liable and the card companies can simply ignore the problem. What is happening is that the retailer effectively gets screwed twice – once by the fraudster and then again by the card company taking its fees on the fraudulent sale.”

Credit card firm schemes for detecting fraud - Verified by Visa and MasterCard’s SecureCode system - require the credit card owner to register their details on the programme. "To date both of these systems have suffered from very disappointing numbers of cardholder and retailer sign up," according to Early Warning.

Phishing losses on the up

APACS notes the roll-out of Chip and PIN is bringing its own short-term problems. The unusually high number of cards - around 200,000 a day - sent out due to the roll out of Chip and PIN last year was accompanied by a rise in losses from cards never received by consumers. Mail non-receipt losses came out at £72.9m last year, up 62.7 per from 2003.

The one bright spot in the otherwise uniform rise in plastic fraud painted by APACS is a reduction in overseas fraud by 11 per cent to £92.5m, an improvement attributed to the card companies' use of "increasingly sophisticated fraud intelligence systems to detect fraudulent spending on cards".

As well as plastic card fraud, organised gangs also moved into other types of financial crime. In 2004 total losses for online banking fraud were recorded for the first time and reached £12m. The banking industry blames these losses on either straightforward phishing scams or the use of Trojans to capture security credentials through keystroke logging, a tactic which allows fraudsters to subsequently raid online banking accounts.

The industry has established sites to help online banking consumers stay safe online and on how to protect themselves against identity theft. APACS’ fraud prevention website is here. ®

Related stories

Retailers set straight on Chip and PIN
The chip and PIN insecurity card
Trojan targets UK online bank accounts
Big guns back UK IT security drive
Four charged in landmark UK phishing case
Chip and PIN intro fuels mini-boom in card crime
Credit card crime squad celebrates success
US hit for $548m in fraud losses

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

More from The Register

next story
The 'fun-nification' of computer education – good idea?
Compulsory code schools, luvvies love it, but what about Maths and Physics?
Facebook, Apple: LADIES! Why not FREEZE your EGGS? It's on the company!
No biological clockwatching when you work in Silicon Valley
Lords take revenge on REVENGE PORN publishers
Jilted Johns and Jennies with busy fingers face two years inside
Happiness economics is bollocks. Oh, UK.gov just adopted it? Er ...
Opportunity doesn't knock; it costs us instead
Ex-US Navy fighter pilot MIT prof: Drones beat humans - I should know
'Missy' Cummings on UAVs, smartcars and dying from boredom
Yes, yes, Steve Jobs. Look what I'VE done for you lately – Tim Cook
New iPhone biz baron points to Apple's (his) greatest successes
Sysadmin with EBOLA? Gartner's issued advice to debug your biz
Start hoarding cleaning supplies, analyst firm says, and assume your team will scatter
Edward who? GCHQ boss dodges Snowden topic during last speech
UK spies would rather 'walk' than do 'mass surveillance'
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Why and how to choose the right cloud vendor
The benefits of cloud-based storage in your processes. Eliminate onsite, disk-based backup and archiving in favor of cloud-based data protection.
Three 1TB solid state scorchers up for grabs
Big SSDs can be expensive but think big and think free because you could be the lucky winner of one of three 1TB Samsung SSD 840 EVO drives that we’re giving away worth over £300 apiece.
Reg Reader Research: SaaS based Email and Office Productivity Tools
Read this Reg reader report which provides advice and guidance for SMBs towards the use of SaaS based email and Office productivity tools.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.