Singapore — A netizen has said on Facebook that she lost approximately S$10,150 due to fraudulent transactions charged to her card.
However, she says the DBS fraud team concluded that the transactions could not be fraudulent because they were made securely with one-time passwords (OTP).
But the woman says she never received any SMS alerts or OTPs for the transactions.
She says that in January she tried to complete an online transaction by using her supplementary credit card but was unable to do so. Initially, she chalked it down to a glitch and used another card for the transaction first. A few days later, she tried using the same card and was told that it was declined.
The netizen called DBS to find out why she was unable to use the card and was told that she had almost exceeded the credit limit. Surprised because she had used the card only for a few items that she and her husband needed for their new home, she requested the details of the transactions charged to her card.
She was horrified to learn that seven consecutive transactions were charged to her card, with each one approximating $1,400. The transactions totalled S$10,150. She had no idea so much had been spent on her card because she had not yet received her credit card statement at the time.
She informed the bank staff that she did not carry out the transactions and requested them to investigate the charges. However, she was told by the bank that they were unable to process a refund for her since the transactions were secure ones that were authenticated with OTP.
However, she says that she did not receive any OTP. The bank suggested that she could have keyed in the OTPs by mistake, but the netizen is adamant that she could not have done so seven times in a row.
The netizen is being held liable for the charges.
She was advised to file a police report so the police could investigate the case, which could help her request for a refund. Despite being heavily pregnant then, she rushed down to the nearest police station with her husband.
The seven transactions were made to TransferWise (now known as Wise), which is a website that facilitates international money transfers. Prior to the incident, she and her husband were unaware that such a service existed.
The next morning, she called Wise to see if there was anything they could do about the situation. However, the transactions had already been completed then and were irreversible. By the time she called, Wise had already suspended the account that processed the seven transactions.
The bank had notified Wise about the incident and let them know that the account was possibly involved in a case of fraud, prompting them to act on the bank’s suspicion and suspend the account.
The transactions were wired to CWP Global Enterprise, a Malaysian company, and were transferred and processed in Ringgit currency. Afterwards, the netizen called the police officer in charge of her case and informed the police officer of what she learnt. She was then asked if she could drop by the station to add the new details to her statement.
The police had concluded the case with no favourable outcome. The lack of leads led the officer’s superior to advise her to conclude the case. The Wise account user was interviewed and the police found out that it was a case of identity theft.
Another person had used the person’s personal details to create an account on Wise. The netizen also makes it clear that the transactions were not carried out by this person.
Now, the netizen and her husband have reached a dead end. She says that the bank is unwilling to do anything about the case and also insists that they pay the sum of S$10,150.
The netizen and her husband explained to the bank that they had lodged a police report and were waiting for the police’s investigation results. However, they were still unwilling to waive the interest, which amounted to a few hundred dollars.
She advised her husband to consult their MP, Mr Gan Kim Yong. Mr Gan’s assistant sent an email to the Monetary Authority of Singapore and DBS. The next day, a manager from DBS called the netizen’s husband to inform him that the bank would waive the interest while the investigation was ongoing.
The netizen and her husband acted on the officer’s recommendation to bring their case to FIDReC, which is an independent and impartial alternative dispute resolution institution.
However, the bank explained that the transactions were deemed authorised by the netizen herself since they could only be completed with SMS OTPs. There were apparently SMS alerts that were sent to the netizen’s mobile number after each disputed transaction was completed.
The netizen highlights that she did not receive any SMS OTPs or alerts regarding any of the seven transactions.
StarHub explained that they were only able to track incoming and outgoing calls, as well as outgoing messages (that is, anything chargeable), according to the customer service representative that the netizen spoke with.
When she asked if receipts of text messages are recorded in their system, she was told that the Singapore Police Force would need to speak with StarHub HQ in order to access the data. While this was communicated to a police officer, there was no favourable outcome.
The netizen concludes her post by asking other netizens if they have had similar experiences and also beseeches them to circulate the post.
In an edit, she adds that she did try to bring up the case to someone of higher authority, the head of credit cards. She was told that he would get the frauds team to investigate the case and was also told that they had not yet encountered any case of bypassing of OTP.
The netizen also clarifies that a total of 10 transactions were made but only seven went through. That was because DBS started rejecting transactions after the seventh transaction and contacted Wise for possible fraudulent activity.
The netizen says the last possible course of action for her would be to refer the case for adjudication. However, DBS may then revoke its offer of waiving 30 per cent of the amount, she says.
In the comments section, some netizens noted that they had experienced or heard of others facing the same issue.
Meanwhile, others suggested getting legal advice, approaching the Monetary Authority of Singapore or writing to the Finance Minister.
Photo: Facebook ScreengrabTISG has reached out to the netizen for comment. /TISG