13 October 2009

Fraud, Fraud, Glorious Fraud

The Australian Institute of Criminology has released a Trends & issues in crime and criminal justice paper on 'Consumer fraud in Australia: costs, rates and awareness of the risks in 2008', nicely timed for the great identity crime conference in - where else - the Gold Coast - this month.

The paper by Russell Smith and Carolyn Budd examines current evidence of
the cost, extent of and awareness of consumer fraud in Australia. In 2008, the ABS found that approximately five percent of the Australian population reported being victimised by consumer scams, with personal losses reaching almost $1b. This paper compares the findings of the ABS survey with those gathered by the AIC during the annual fraud awareness-raising activities conducted by the Australasian Consumer Fraud Taskforce. In 2008, a self-selected sample of 919 respondents to the AIC's online survey reported being victimised by a wide variety of scams, including those relating to fictitious lotteries, phishing scams, financial advice and other attempts to elicit personal information from respondents. Individuals from all age groups were targeted in these scams, with older Australians being victimised to a similar extent to those in their middle years. Armed with an understanding of the nature and scope of the risks, consumer protection and other regulatory agencies can tailor their fraud prevention activities to maximise their impact—therefore reducing the extent to which consumers take up offers which are too good to be true.
The AIC reports that the survey contained questions about
four specific types of scam invitations: lottery, money transfer (advance fee fraud), personal information (phishing) and offers of financial advice as well as an 'other' category.

* Lottery scams involve the offer of a prize, usually from an overseas lottery, that a person has not entered.
* Money transfer scams or ACFT involve a request to transfer money into a person's bank account. This involves a story, which can vary significantly, but the common theme is the need for an upfront payment in exchange for the promise of a significantly larger repayment in the future.
* Phishing scams involve a fraudulent request for details. Perpetrators will usually impersonate a reputable business such as a bank and request confirmation of personal details such as bank account numbers or passwords.
* Financial advice scams involve payment for 'get rich quick' schemes that offer ways to make money or claim to include investment secrets.

The 'other' category included any scam that did not fit the exact definitions of the types above ... [including] 'work from home' scams which involve fake job offers and 'inheritance scams,' which involve an offer to claim an inheritance from a deceased estate, as well as 'dating and romance scams' involving fake profiles on matchmaking websites.
Unsurprisingly, given the prevalence of spam, 90% of respondents had "received an invitation to a scam" in the preceding 12 months, 80% of respondents getting an email offer from the supposed heirs of an African kleptocrat, a kindly auditor or bank managers and so forth. 18% had responded positively to an unsolicited invitation in that 12 month period, with 'responding positively' being defined as corresponding in some way with the person/s to further communication (anything from a reply email requesting further information to sending money to the person/s).

The AIC found the 25–34, 35–44 and 55–64 age cohorts held the largest percentage of fraud victims (23.2%, 21.4% and 22% respectively). Just over 36% of the total sample reported at least one unsolicited scam invitation in some manner. Of those who had responded positively to a scam, just over 66% reported their experience in some way. They were most likely to report to a consumer affairs agency (18%) or the business involved (16%), with the rate for reporting to the police at around 7%. Approximately one third of victims did not report in any way.

A Newspoll survey commissioned by the Australian Communications & Media Authority, the national telecommunications regulator, has meanwhile resulted in claims that 39% of Australians with mobile phones or an email account are unaware of who to contact to complain about spam email and SMS, with almost half the population (47%) being unsure about where to direct complaints regarding unwanted telemarketing calls. So much for general consciousness of the Do Not Call (DNC) register.