Profile

Location

London

Member since

2019

Writes about

Security Payments Regulation & Compliance Financial Crime Predictions

Jackie's blog archive

2021 (3) 2019 (1)

Jackie Barwell

Director at ACI Worldwide

Message Posts: 4 Comments: 5

Bio Jackie Barwell is Director of Fraud Product Management at ACI Worldwide. Career History Jackie has more than 27 years' experience within financial crime. She joined Retail Decisions (ReD) in late 2011, prior to its acquisition by ACI in 2014, as Head of International Products.

Blogs

Transaction Fraud Systems and Analysis

2022: What's next for financial fraud?

16 Dec 2021

Against the backdrop of continuing economic uncertainty, financial fraud will continue to thrive in 2022, with fraudsters expected to exploit consumers across all digital channels. Sadly, the industry has not yet solved the age-old question: “Who are you?”. And as it stands, fraudsters, in many cases, are winning the war when it comes to financial...

Fintech

It’s time to fight fraud in real-time

30 Nov 2021

Financial fraud causes billions in losses every year for banks and financial institutions (FIs). By 2027, the global cost of fraud could reach $40.62 billion. In the UK alone, £753.9 million was stolen through fraud this year, an increase of 30% compared to the same period in 2020. The rapid adoption of digital and real-time payments and new payme...

Fintech

Fighting the UK’s Payments Fraud Pandemic

14 Oct 2021

Fraud rates in the UK have been climbing to new record heights, so much so that the UK’s industry body UK Finance has been talking for the first time about fraud posing a national security threat. According to latest figures, £754m was stolen from bank customers during the first half of this year - a 30% rise compared to the same period in 2020. S...

Transaction Fraud Systems and Analysis

How knowledge of your customers can help fight fraud

20 May 2019

The eCommerce industry is continuing its rapid growth and the lines between physical and digital shopping are becoming increasingly blurred. This change in the way consumers conduct purchases is creating a number of challenges for merchants, especially when it comes to customer visibility and fraud prevention. Providing a good customer experience...

See all Jackie's blogs

Jackie is Commenting on

UK Payments Association calls on new PSR chief to delay APP fraud rules

Hi Bill, I completely understand where you are coming from - my original hopes for this was that the recipient bank would take 100% of the loss as long as the sending bank could show they'd 'done everything viably possible' to persuade their customer to take the care needed. But we are where we are - and my opinion is that this is our 'starting point'. I really hope (because I'm an optimist, although I've been an eternal one (having been patient for almost 40 years in this trade!) that this will help make fundamental changes in the ability for banks to share intelligence. Once we get to a point where intelligence is being shared, those organisations who are simply 'not doing enough' (be it at persuading their customers not to make mistakes, or substantially improving their onboarding operations) will be easily identified, and the 'liability share' appropriately adjusted over time. I agree - if the fraudsters couldn't get their hands on a bank account, there would be no APP fraud.... but we're miles away from that right now.

01 Jul 2024 Reply Read article

UK Payments Association calls on new PSR chief to delay APP fraud rules

Interesting conversation above. I am in favour of a postponement and adjustment for all the reason cited by the UK Payments Association. I am a strong believer that when there is a means for a fraudster to be successful, we have to start somewhere to close that loop. OK, the 'loop' in this case is a vulnerable account owner who gets sucked into what they believe is a credible situation (and there are various ways to interpret vulnerable, I know) - but at the end of the day, criminals are getting money for very little effort. I have never agreed that the liablity should be equally split between the sending and receiving banks (only) - but what this ruling HAS done is make the whole industry look at how they monitor (properly!!!) every account - and include AML-type activities on ALL their portfolio in order to close the ability for fraudster to have control of accounts into which they persuade the victim to move their money. I hope this postponement is awarded. I hope the big tech players are pulled into the mix and the liability is adjusted in the right way. I hope there is time for the banks to get organised, logistically. I hope the limit recommendations come into force. In my opinion, this has the potential to be a game-changer, forcing banks with weaker onboarding processes to pull up their socks; persuading the industry to look to intelligence sharing in real time. If this doesn't persuade us to do that - nothing will.

01 Jul 2024 Reply Read article

Fraud victims lose £28K to bank transfer scams every hour

Giles, I'm sorry to hear that your son was scammed of his entire bank account contents. It's an interesting angle you talk about here - securing the inbound call to a consumer from 'the Bank' with legitimate and well advertised authentication through the banking app. This would go a really long way to eliminate the bank impersonation scams that are so rife right now. If this is a capability that could be applied, then the banks need to take a good hard look at what appears to be double standards here. Thank you for your comment.

09 Mar 2022 Reply Read article

Three-in-four APP fraud cases rejected by banks overturned by Financial Ombudsman

Banks have the ability to monitor incoming funds as much as they can monitor outgoing - so they should do so. If a recipient bank account accumulates a 'dodgy' reputation over time, then surely that recipient bank should decline future incoming transactions to the 'dodgy' account as soon as its risk score reaches a pre-determined 'reject' threshold. If banks do that, then they have a better case to answer if they choose to reject a claim. By not doing this, they're not doing all they can to protect account holders.

11 Nov 2021 Reply Read article