Community

Since I predicted that The Death Of Cash Is At Least 190 Years Away, I'm not surprised that cash is not only alive and kicking but is seeing historically unprecedented levels of use. After all, it's only nine years since I made that prediction. 

But that shouldn't stop finsurgents from claiming that people want "Invisible Payments".

TY @Ed Adshead-Grant. 

IMO the role of Confirmation of Payee in preventing A2A RTP fraud / scam is exaggerated.

A typical scam is where Joe uses UPI / FPS / Zelle to buy something from Jane, and does not get what he ordered. The scam lies in the payee's motive and not her identity. As far as Joe is concerned, he is indeed paying the intended recipient. TBH, I don't see how CoP can prevent this scam. 

Keen to know of any ID-related scam that CoP can avert.

PS: I've heard a scenario where a scammer masquerades as a bank manager over a telephone call and asks the victim to transfer money. While CoP can prevent such a scam, TBH, I find that scenario to be contrived since, in my entire life, I've never ever got a call from any of my banks asking me to transfer money to it.

PPS: I'm aware of Business Email Compromise where Buyer needs to make a payment to Seller, Scammer spoofs the Seller's email address and inserts his own bank details in an email to the Buyer, who then makes the payment to the unintended recipient. CoP will help here but I'm not sure if BEC comes within the purview of APP Scam.

I thought CoP has been mandatory and live for nearly 2 years in UK banks?

Going by Wells Fargo et al, it's not that banks don't commit fraud but Fintechs lose trust in extremely lame ways that are obvious even to the average customer. 

PayTM Shows How Fintechs Can Lose Trust

I wish there were a more pleasant way to say this but this report is garbage. 

There are ~300M users of digital payments in India, which is 300M / 1.3B ~ 24% of the country's population. There's no way on earth that 41% of India's population could have been victims of online payment fraud.   

When I last checked, UPI fraud was 0.0267% by processed value.

Despite regulation in EU, there have been onerous certification requirements and stonewalling on scope of API, as a result of which there are only 5M users.

OTOH, after patronizing case-to-case action by US banks in response to customer demand, USA has 80M users of Open Finance.  

End of the day results count. It's amply clear that free market forces have achieved a lot more than regulatory intervention.

As the name suggests, "Authorized Push Payment" is authorized i.e. it is not Unauthorized i.e it's not fraud but scam. I love the way Zelle, the A2A RTP MOP of USA, makes a crystal clear distinction between the two. While banks are liable for fraud, payors must be held liable for scam. 

"There are 5 million users of EU Open Banking in a population of nearly 450 million people, and 80 million users of US Open Finance in a population of 330 million people." ~ Open Banking: EU v. USA.

Doesn't sound like US banks have restricted account access as you claim?

The regulator was probably asleep at the watch for 10+ years but the forces of free market capitalism have forged ahead with Open Banking / Open Finance in USA at least since MINT launched its PFM website 15 years ago.   

CFPB, not CFBP. You might want to correct the typo on the heading of your post.

Article mentions "between their accounts" many times. Can someone confirm that these accounts can be at different banks? Or is VRP restricted to multiple accounts within the same bank?

When I was in UK, my bank did not support either whereas banks in India have been supporting the latter for decades (but, AFAIK, still don't support the former.)

I'd once raised the question of liability of TELCO, Power Utility, et al in APP Scams. Not sure whether banks were inspired by my thoughts or whatever but I totally endorse their going after other parties that are equaly involved in APP Scam.

Automobile company can't be held liable for selling the robbery getaway car. Payee bank can't be held liable for opening the alleged scammer's account.

KYC is not Character Certificate. Banks can't deny accounts even to convicted scammers. How can they be expected to deny account to alleged scammer?

Payor is totally responsible for APP Scam, particularly if s/he ignored a Confirmation of Payee red flag while initiating the payment. Of course, depending on their jurisdiction, they might be eligible to seek redress from law enforcement.