IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/refreg/v10y2024i2p174-193..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘Authorized Push Payment’ Bank Fraud: What Does an Effective Regulatory Response Look Like?

Author

Listed:
  • Jo Braithwaite

Abstract

Authorized Push Payment (APP) fraud occurs where bank customers are tricked into transferring money from their account. As this article shows, this type of fraud is a growing threat, catalysed by the rise of remote banking. However, long-standing legal and regulatory rules leave most victims without a route to redress, as recently confirmed by the UK Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Philipp v Barclays. Through this lens, the article examines a new and ‘world first’ UK regulatory response, which includes a mandatory reimbursement scheme for APP fraud victims in certain circumstances. The article finds that the UK’s new loss allocation scheme is valuable, but also that its specific coverage is problematic given the broad nature of this threat. Overall, the article argues that the priority for UK regulators should be to develop a more ‘joined-up’ response to APP fraud, and it offers generally applicable insights into effective regulatory responses to this evolving threat.

Suggested Citation

  • Jo Braithwaite, 2024. "‘Authorized Push Payment’ Bank Fraud: What Does an Effective Regulatory Response Look Like?," Journal of Financial Regulation, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 174-193.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:refreg:v:10:y:2024:i:2:p:174-193.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jfr/fjae006
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:refreg:v:10:y:2024:i:2:p:174-193.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jfr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.