I’ve been thinking about scams again recently, after a family member was almost swept up in the torrent of sophisticated attacks that Brits are subjected to every day.
Long story short, they sent him a text message that appeared to be from his bank; That is, the message appeared on her smartphone in the same thread of previous, genuine messages, including one about a fraud attempt the previous year that was actually from the Bank.
We’ve covered this number-spoofing tactic extensively over the years on our Beat the Scammers channel, but there are many people who still don’t know about this simple trick that gives scammers an air of legitimacy.
She’s currently a little overwhelmed by work demands and other life stresses, so the message came at a perfect point for the scammers to win.
Caution: Much of the correspondence we receive in modern life is now related to scams, and always remember that scammers can use number spoofing software.
Calling the number in the message, the person on the other end of the phone began counting payments that, of course, were not made by her.
Fortunately, even though the person on the other end of the phone was very professional, he decided to ask for a call back to the phone number on the back of his debit card.
There was no problem was the response. But the most important thing is that the relative in question remembered a key piece of advice: not to call his mobile phone again, but to call his landline.
Often, these scammers are able to keep the line open, meaning a callback will simply get you back into their arms.
Upon calling the landline, and after some unnecessary banter from the corresponding bank, they realized that I was in the middle of a scam attempt and managed to prevent it from continuing.
The reason I mention this is that he has a high-level job, is smart, and takes no prisoners. She doesn’t fit the “usual” profile of someone who might fall for a scam, much like American journalist Charlotte Cowles, who recently wrote a viral article for The Cut tells how he gave $50,000 to scammers.
The two previous stories serve as a warning that we are all vulnerable, to varying degrees depending on our state of mind. Scammers who undertake these types of attempts take advantage of panic, and panic often throws all our intelligence out the window.
“It will never happen to me because I would never do something so stupid” is a dangerous mistake.
Personally, I treat absolutely everything, especially when something unexpected arises, with extreme caution and cynicism, but I am not infallible. Emotion can make us behave in all kinds of unusual ways.
This week, our senior reporter Angharad Carrick reveals how one business owner was scammed out of £100,000, with the business account platform involved, Tide, admitting some mistakes in trying to resolve it, but only offering half the cash refund.
Again, a smart person, but the level of authenticity that scammers exude is incredibly high: they have perfected their craft, they know how to hook people and then gut them without a care in the world.
Last week, our sister title Money Mail reported on romance scams and how a husband was left helpless when his wife entered into several online relationships, handing over £100,000 intended for his grandchildren’s inheritance.
The number of criminals trying this tactic is enormous. They thrive on those who feel lonely, vulnerable, and are delighted to receive attention.
I also worry about how vulnerable we are becoming in other ways. For example, I have noticed that people become more careless when using Smartphone Unlock Pins.
It’s easy for a criminal to take your phone and use your PIN to gain access to types of information, and doubly bad if you’re someone who uses the same PIN for your bank card and/or banking app.
The This is Money team has recently heard that stories like this are becoming more common.
The era of Artificial Intelligence is also approaching, which can imitate voices and behaviors. No doubt some criminal gang will figure out how to turn it into a fraudulent source of income.
I’m not trying to scare you, but rather give you an annual reminder to get clear. That’s why we’ve had our Beat the Scammers channel for almost a decade. So we can provide you with as much knowledge as possible and share it with friends, family, colleagues, your hairdresser and anyone who will listen.
There are old scams that have been around for years that adapt and evolve, including an Associate Editor Helen Crane covered last week in which scammers impersonate hotels on Booking.com’s official messaging service, and more scams. new ones that you should be aware of.
I’m not trying to scare you, but rather give you an annual reminder to get clear.
That’s why we’ve had our Beat the Scammers channel for almost a decade. So we can provide you with as much knowledge as possible and share it with friends, family, colleagues, your hairdresser and anyone who will listen.
You never know: That little bit of shared knowledge could help someone keep their life savings safe. Fortunately, that’s what happened with my family member.
Scams have continued to grow into a problem costing us billions of pounds every year and although action is promised, the problems still appear to be growing.
So my advice? Firstly, treat all telephone correspondence, especially text messages, with caution and mental clarity. Remember, these scammers can spoof numbers so that messages appear in a genuine correspondence thread.
Secondly, always try to be one step ahead.
Our reporter Harvey Dorset – in collaboration with consumer group Which? – He exclusively listed the five scams you probably haven’t heard of, but he should keep an eye out this year.
They include phishing, tapjacking and deepfake videos. You have no idea what I’m talking about? Well, read on: it could be the wisest five minutes you spend this year.
Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them, we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.
