Expert calls for NSRC overhaul as millions lost to scammers posing as NSRC officials

 

WASPADA PANGGILAN DARIPADA NSRC - Laman Web MKN

PETALING JAYA: There is a need to look at the current staffing and ability of the National Scam Response Centre (NSRC), which is unable to handle the scams that are happening, says cybersecurity law expert Derek John Fernandez.

Although there is presently a hotline for scammed victims to report to NSRC, the staff members are not trained enough and the hotline is not active all the time, the lawyer pointed out.

“For now, there is only a handful of borrowed civil staff manning NSRC’s 997 hotline and it is not on round the clock, all year round.

“On top of that, those who take the calls are not adequately trained to diagnose these cases and as scams take place almost instantly due to advanced technology, speed is of much necessity in stopping a scammer. 

“It should be a 24-hour hotline run by trained personnel at the call centre with the right amount of budget and resources.

“Without this, NSRC cannot fulfil its mandate as the national scam response centre,” said Fernandez, who is also a Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) commissioner.

He feels that there is much to be done to strengthen NSRC and coordinate its four main components – the Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), Bank Negara, MCMC and National Anti-Financial Crime Centre (NFCC) – to enable it to function more effectively as a one-stop anti-scam centre.

“The policies of NSRC must be pushed to reduce scam risks. My view is that the agency now has insufficient resources to carry out a full service to cover all complaints of scams.

“On top of that, it also lacks staff to conduct proper diagnoses of attempted scams,” he said.

Fernandez said that if NSRC is to function as a one-stop centre for all scam responses, the government must provide it with more funds and the latest technology.

“The agency head and staff members must also be given more command and control to be able to stop scammers,” he said.

He called on the four main components of NSRC as well as financial institutions to play their part in training the staff members.

“There must be clear and defined mandates, powers and financing of the centre,” said Fernandez.

Meanwhile, the Alliance for Safe Community chairman Tan Sri Lee Lam Thye called for the government to equip the NSRC with the latest technologies to fight cybercrime as well as to update any obsolete cyber laws.

“In our fight against scamners, it is necessary to make full use of the NSRC but to do so the government must equip NSRC with the latest technologies.

“Online scamming has become such a serious issue that most of the criminal activities by scammers are online.

“We need to employ the latest technologies. We must utilise NSRC to deal with public complaints.

“We need to look at the expertise needed, albeit foreign expertise if need be,” said Lee.

He said that it is sad that although NSRC is already a year old, it has yet to be the one stop anti scam centre it was supposed to be.

“The authorities should revisit NSRC and ensure that more work is done to beef up the centre. It must involve all the four relevant components of the NSRC.

“I hope the authorities will make sure the centre is not only to solve scams but is also a prevention agency to stop more scams from happening.

“The government should also study the current cyber laws and amend them to ensure our cybersecurity legislation is updated to ensure we will win in our fight against cybercrime,” said Lee.

Source link

Related News

---

TRUE OR NOT 

QuickCheck: Have scammers started impersonating NSRC...

NATION 17 Jun 2024

Plans to fortify anti-scam centre

 Millions lost to scammers posing as NSRC officials

KUALA LUMPUR: Scammers impersonating National Scam Response Centre (NSRC) personnel have already duped 60 people this year, resulting in RM7.6mil worth of losses, says Comm Datuk Seri Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf.

The Bukit Aman Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) director said the victims would receive calls from someone claiming to be from the NSRC, who would then tell them that their phone number was linked to a scam report and might be cancelled.

“The call will then be transferred to another person, posing as a police officer.

“They will be told to follow every instruction until they eventually transfer funds to an account,” he said when contacted. 

Comm Ramli emphasised that NSRC operates solely as a one-way communications centre for reporting scams.

“NSRC officers will not call anyone and if you receive any calls claiming to be from the centre, it is definitely a scam.

“I also hope the public will make use of the SemakMule portal to check and verify bank accounts before making transactions,” he said.

The police have opened 60 investigations into such cases, involving RM7.6mil in losses, as of June 15, Comm Ramli said.

“One of the latest cases involves a 70-year-old retired factory worker in Johor who lost RM584,000 of his life savings after he received a call from scammers posing as NSRC officers,” he added.

On another matter, Comm Ramli said there were reported losses of RM1.07bil from 14,846 commercial cases in the first 24 weeks of the year.

“We recorded an average of 88 cases daily,” he said.

He added that the number of cases had increased slightly from the 14,798 cases that were recorded in the corresponding period last year.

“However, the amount of losses has spiked by about 27% as the cases resulted in RM843mil in losses last year,” he said.

He added that the CCID is confident in dealing with the huge number of cases, as it has seen an increase in successful prosecutions.

“A total of 7,018 investigation papers led to successful prosecutions this year compared with the same period last year when 6,219 prosecutions were recorded,” he said.

Comm Ramli reminded the public to be more vigilant.

“Help us spread commercial crime prevention messages. Let us work together to create a safer environment, free from commercial crime,” he said.

Source link

Millions stolen from bank with insider help; Theft prompts security review

KUALA LUMPUR: The suspects linked to the siphoning of millions from a bank targeted their victims based on insider information, says Bukit Aman.

Bukit Aman Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) director Comm Datuk Seri Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf (pic)said the group stole the money in stages after they had identified high-value account holders.

“The money was taken out via the bank counter and the first one was conducted around April. Several more were done in May and June.

“With inside help, the money was taken out according to bank procedures. The case only came to light after an account holder went to the bank to update details,” he said at a press conference yesterday. 

He said it was possible that syndicate members who were working in the bank also directly facilitated the transactions.

Among those caught included a bank manager.

Investigations showed that the mastermind had expertise in forgery and the syndicate members would use forged identifications to take money out of targeted accounts. 

“The details would be the same but the photo and thumbprints would be changed,” he said, adding that forged documents were then used to facilitate the money transfers.

Meanwhile, another case has been detected, with losses involving RM551,000.

“This was done at another bank earlier in the year and we are also investigating that case,” he said.

When contacted, Comm Ramli said 13 people, including four bank employees, were detained recently in connection with millions of ringgit that vanished.

Arrests were mostly made in Kota Kinabalu with one suspect caught in Padang Besar, Perlis.

The case is currently being investigated under Section 420 of the Penal Code for cheating.

“The involvement of bank personnel in commercial crime is a very serious matter.

“In the past, we have encountered cases where bank personnel were complicit in crimes such as criminal breach of trust or embezzlement.

“There are also those who were in cahoots with theft or scam syndicates,” he said.

Comm Ramli urged financial institutions to improve their security such as tightening procedures or imposing stricter measures in regard to withdrawal from accounts.

“Such measures are necessary to prevent theft or missing funds from customers’ bank accounts.

“We feel that improvements are needed for the sake of the account holders,” he said.

From 2022 to June 15 this year, a total of 485 cases of missing funds from bank accounts have been recorded involving RM35.01mil in losses.

“From the overall statistics, this year alone we recorded RM25.76mil in losses and 65 cases.

“The highest number was 225 cases last year, but it involved only RM4.82mil, followed by 195 cases in 2022 involving RM4.42mil,” he said.

Besides the involvement of “inside men” in financial institutions, Comm Ramli said another factor that could have contributed to the missing funds was disclosure of banking details to a third party.

“Our investigations revealed that some victims might have intentionally or unintentionally revealed details of their online banking username and password,” he said.

Comm Ramli said scammers are known for using the phishing technique to dupe victims via email or text messages.

He advised the public to stay vigilant and be wary of tactics used by scammers.

Sorce link

Related stories:

Theft prompts security review

RM24mil bank fraud: Inside men picked high-value accounts to hit, says CCID director

Theft prompts security review

d9c10f09-7654-496c-af1e-0af847d1b361

PETALING JAYA: A recent embezzlement case involving bank staff in Kota Kinabalu has sparked calls for tighter security measures in financial institutions.

Universiti Sains Malaysia criminologist Datuk Dr P. Sundramoorthy (pix) said the recent case that saw over a dozen arrested was both concerning and a wake-up call.

“Although the number of wrongdoings and criminal acts by bank employees may be very minimal, it cannot be ignored.

ALSO READ: RM24.2mil fraud: BNM requests prompt refunds to all affected account holders 

“The rakyat, investors and the business community depend on the banks to safeguard their money.

“We don’t have a choice in this matter.

“Banks must aggressively play a role in eliminating undesirable employees,” he said, adding that banks need to invest in internal security and loss prevention departments, even if it incurs costs.

“These departments should have the expertise to detect embezzlement, fraud and misconduct by employees,” he said.

“Security investments are assets, not liabilities.”

ALSO READ: Millions stolen from bank with insider help

Drawing comparison with law enforcement bodies, he added that employees at highly sensitive areas should be rotated to avoid any potential for leakages within the bank, even if they are competent in their jobs.

“This is especially important for positions with access to customer accounts,” he said.

Pre-employment screening must also be done for all employees with regular assessments for those in service, he added.

Duties must also be “robustly” segregated, with dual authorisation practices implemented as well.

“That was a substantial amount of money (lost) and I hope measures will be taken.

“Since it was an inside job, the bank must be responsible for covering every single ringgit and sen that was misappropriated.

“Banks must be proactive and they should work together with the victims and law enforcement to ensure such incidents are reported.

“Employee pilferage is not new but it is also not frequent. We must not tolerate it,” he said, adding that harsh penalties and criminal charges must be meted out on those involved.

Such cases, he said, also affects the credibility of the bank involved as customer confidence will drop.

Previously, Bukit Aman Commercial Crime Investigation Department (CCID) director Comm Datuk Seri Ramli Mohamed Yoosuf said that four police reports were lodged since early June regarding suspicious transactions, with losses estimated to be around RM24.2mil.

As of June 18, the police have arrested 13 suspects aged between 22 and 52 years old.

Four suspects were found to be employees of the bank. 

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2024/06/22/theft-prompts-security-review

Related stories:

RM24.2mil fraud: BNM requests prompt refunds to all affected account holders

Related posts:

BLACK SHEEP IN BANKS, Employees you cannot bank on, Calls for banks to bolster cyberdefences

Weed out the problematic, errant, incompetent officers early

Commissioner Of Buildings (COB) In Malaysia, And Their 6 Main Functions

Klik sini untuk versi BM.

Have you heard of the Commissioner of Buildings (COB)? Maybe it’s whispered about in your apartment complex at night — "be sure to pay your maintenance fees, or the Commissioner of Buildings will get you".

Don’t worry, it’s not as scary as that! The COB is actually a valuable part of effective facility management, and that’s particularly important when you live in a large stratified property.

So, let’s dispel the myths and get down to the truth. Here’s everything you need to know about the Commissioner of Building in Malaysia, and why that’s important to you as a property owner.

Understanding The Commissioner Of Buildings

The Commissioner of Buildings is essentially an enforcement officer designed to police the rules and regulations of the Strata Management Act 2013 (SMA).

This Act is the framework of regulation, which ensures stratified properties are managed and maintained in an effective and fair manner.

It’s the set of rules that lays out the rights and obligations of every single stratified property owner in Malaysia, as well as other relevant parties, such as management bodies and developers.

It includes essential elements of stratified property ownership, such as the rules and limits around maintenance fees and sinking funds.

A COB will only ever be appointed to oversee stratified properties such as apartments, condos, or flats, so you don’t have to worry about someone turning up at your bungalow looking to enforce any rules!

Stratified properties are those where owners possess a strata title to individual property units as part of a larger shared development, and some less common property types like townhouses.

In addition, the Commissioner of Buildings is empowered by a local council authority within a given state.

So, for example: the Commissioner of Buildings Selangor will have separate agents appointed by, and responsible for, municipal councils from Subang Jaya, Petaling Jaya, Kajang, and so on.

You can find a handy list of Commissioner of Buildings compiled by the National House Buyers Association to refer to here.

The COB is empowered to investigate and adjudicate on breaches of the SMA, providing a neutral third-party that ensures all rules are fairly applied to everyone involved. Basically, they’re kind of like the sheriff of building management.

PropertyGuru Tip

The term ‘adjudicate’ simply refers to the process of determining how much stamp duty is payable for the instrument of transfer.

A Commissioner of Buildings’ role isn’t just about punishing people though. It’s designed to ensure proper management and upkeep of stratified property is maintained for the benefit of all.

They’ve even got a cool description of their objective, taken from the official Klang Commissioner of Buildings’ website:

To ensure maintenance of joint property is implemented, based on the law and procedures, for creating harmony in life sharing joint property for the development of elevated [buildings].

What Does The Commissioner Of Buildings Do?

Like we’ve highlighted above, the Commissioner of Buildings enforces the rules laid out in the Strata Management Act 2013. But what does that really cover?

It’s not just maintenance fees and sinking funds like you might think. There are six main functions of the Department of Building Commissioner, as noted by the Klang COB:

1. Conducting inventory on buildings within the relevant local area.
2. Ensure the establishment of a Joint Management Body (JMB) for development involving stratified planning.
3. Resolving any dispute between the developer and the purchaser relating to the establishment of the JMB and account maintenance.
4. Monitor the action of a developer in addressing repair defects.
5. Enforce the law stipulated in the Strata Management Act (Act 757) 2013 and the Strata Management Act 2013 (Act 757).
6. Provide periodic learning about administrative management, audited accounts, financial provisions and other various topics related to the management of JMB/MC.

That list of duties covers a whole range of property management obligations, from accounts right through to education and support for the Joint Management Body (JMB) or Management Corporation (MC).

The Commissioner of Buildings is entitled to a range of powers in order to fulfill the obligations highlighted above.

They include, but are not limited to, access to accounts of management boards and developers for the purpose of auditing.

That means all decisions made by the COB should be informed by the latest financial information to ensure appropriate oversight.

The COB can also step in and appoint an individual to assemble meetings in order to meet the obligations of building management, or order the MC itself to hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) if required.

Commissioner of Buildings, or authorised personnel designated by the COB, may access a property for the purpose of carrying out essential repairs at any time.

The COB also has power to prosecute any individuals who fail to meet their payment obligations such as management or maintenance fees, and adjudicate on any dispute around payment of such fees.

That includes obligations around the defect liability period that’s laid out in the Housing Development Act.

Is The COB Always Right?

It might sound like the COB is some sort of all-powerful overseer of strata property management, but that doesn’t mean they’re not also held accountable.

The COB is answerable to the Strata Management Tribunal. On top of that, the rulings of the COB are ultimately answerable to legal processes in the courts, and challenges to COB decisions can be brought in via this way.

In one example from 2010, a Management Corporation (MC) for a development in Penang challenged the COB in the High Court over a ruling that only unit owners could be elected as council members of stratified property management corporations.

The COB ruling, and the following appeal, were later upheld. The COB isn’t always in the right, however.

In 2013, the COB ruled on a case whereby a developer owed a JMB for a shortfall of RM500,000 in overdue maintenance funds.

The JMB referred the matter to the COB, who ruled that the sum was owed by the developer to the JMB. A court ruling later dismissed this, citing lack of jurisdiction in this matter by the COB.

What’s The Difference Between COB And Strata Management Tribunal?

At this point, some of you might be wondering where the Strata Management Tribunal (SMT) comes into play?

The Strata Management Tribunal is another legally recognised body, which, like the Commissioner of Buildings, provides a vital service in overseeing stratified properties.

While the COB is concerned with the general needs and enforcement of building maintenance and management, the SMT is a body which exclusively deals with resolving disputes. There are some subtle differences however, that should be recognised.

Ultimately, the COB is answerable to the SMT, since it’s the empowered legal authority for overseeing the implementation of the full Strata Management Act 2013. The Strata Management Tribunal is limited to claims brought by the following parties:

• Developer
• Purchaser
• Proprietor
• Joint Management Body (JMB)
• Management Corporation (MC)
• Subsidiary Management Company (SMC)
• Managing agent
• Relevant parties (Special permission granted by Tribunal)

The SMT is designed to provide an affordable and accessible dispute resolution body for problems of stratified ownership. There’s no legal representation required, except in extremely complex cases where it’s deemed that one party may be disadvantaged by lack of representation.

The critical point to understand about the SMT in relation to the COB is that the SMT will only hear claims covering financial costs up to a maximum RM250,000.

Any cases over that amount, such as the 2013 disputed claim noted above, are outside that scope. You can find out more about the full details of the Strata Management Tribunal here.

Breaking down the difference between SMT and COB in the most simple way possible – the Commissioner of Buildings is the sheriff and the enforcer, the Strata Management Tribunal is the judge(s) who oversee application of the law.

These are all important measures to ensure all stratified properties don’t end up becoming like the Wild Wild West of property management!

Relevant Guides:

• Serviced Apartment vs Condo In Malaysia – What’s The Difference?

• What You Should Know About Living In A Strata Landed Property In Malaysia

• 9 Townhouses Below RM500,000 In Klang Valley You Should Check Out!

Disclaimer: The information is provided for general information only. PropertyGuru International (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd makes no representations or warranties in relation to the information, including but not limited to any representation or warranty as to the fitness for any particular purpose of the information to the fullest extent permitted by law. While every effort has been made to ensure that the information provided in this article is accurate, reliable, and complete as of the time of writing, the information provided in this article should not be relied upon to make any financial, investment, real estate or legal decisions. Additionally, the information should not substitute advice from a trained professional who can take into account your personal facts and circumstances, and we accept no liability if you use the information to form decisions.

Source link

Related posts:

Weed out the problematic, errant, incompetent officers early

‘Review Strata Management Act’