Scam victim asks why banks, BNM allowed transactions to flagged accounts

 The central bank says a Semakmule listing does not by itself prove wrongdoing or automatically result in account restrictions.

A lawyer who lost RM155,000 in a scam now wants answers from the authorities. (Envato Elements pic)

PETALING JAYA:

Losing RM155,000 to swindlers over a 10-day period has left a lawyer wondering how money can be so easily moved into accounts that have already been flagged on suspicion of scam.

To make matters worse for the victim, who wishes to be known as TD, Bank Negara Malaysia (BNM) had been evasive when answers were sought from them, citing confidentiality as reason for not divulging information.

She said complaints to the Ombudsman for Financial Services and the Public Complaints Bureau also drew similarly cautious responses.

TD’s ordeal began on Dec 11, 2024 with an offer of a part time job with a firm that purportedly did online hotel reservations and writing reviews.

She was asked to pay a “small fee” to join the company, with a promise that it would be returned later along with commissions for tasks she completed.

But the company then began to demand more and larger sums of money while instructing her to complete more tasks before she could recover all that she had paid.

At one point, she was even told by the swindlers that the green light from BNM was required before her money could be returned to her.

It was then that she realised she had been duped. She lodged a police report on Dec 21, 2024.

TD later discovered that the bank account she had been transferring money to had been flagged by Semakmule “six to eight times”.

Semakmule is a portal where people can check bank accounts, phone numbers and company names to see if any of them is linked to financial scams.

TD then raised the matter with the banks and the central bank, querying why they did not stop transfers flowing into accounts flagged on Semakmule.

“They kept talking about the fact that I authorised the transfer, but that is not my question,” she told FMT.

“My question is why accounts with multiple (Semakmule) alerts were still allowed to receive money, and why the banks’ systems did not detect the suspicious pattern,” she said.

She added that BNM also did not explain why the accounts remained active or why the warning signs did not trigger an early response.

BNM just repeatedly cited confidentiality for not divulging any information, she added.

She also alleged that some of her follow-up emails to the governor had been deleted unread, though the central bank later said this might have been due to an IT issue.

She said the ombudsman gave “exactly the same answer” as BNM while the bureau merely told her the central bank had already replied.

In response to questions from FMT, the central bank said a Semakmule listing does not by itself prove wrongdoing or automatically result in account restrictions.

It said the Semakmule platform is managed by the police and functions as a public awareness and prevention tool.

“Banks are expected to act based on their own checks, verified information and the law,” BNM said.

However, the central bank did not say whether the banks involved had acted properly in this case, or whether repeated alerts and unusual transfer patterns should have triggered stronger action earlier. - FMT