O2 stung: 'Victim Not Present' Fraud

[goodwill]

http://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/CityPolice/Media/News/news071210.htm

 

A criminal gang who used stolen SIM cards to con mobile phone companies out of more than £2million has today been sentenced for a total of 26 years at Southwark Crown Court.

 

Ashok Kumar, from Twickenham, and Mohammed Akmal and Fahad Lone, from Birmingham, were yesterday found guilty of their part in a complex national and international telecom fraud.

 

The court heard how a joint City of London Police and O2 investigation found the men using fraudulently obtained bankcards and false utility bills to obtain pay monthly mobile phone contracts in stores across London.

 

The gang used the SIM cards to make unlimited calls from locations in Twickenham and Birmingham to their own premium rate international phone numbers, without ever paying the bill.

 

In some cases a ‘group call system’ was used to multiply the cost of the calls six-fold by making six calls at the same time from the same SIM card. These calls were usually logged after midnight to try and avoid detection.

 

From these lines multiple long duration calls were being made to numbers associated to Latvia, Estonia, Sierra Leone, Liechtenstein and Switzerland.

 

At the end of the month the phone companies were contractually bound to pay the bill, with part of the revenue being paid to companies owned or operated by the fraudsters who had made all the calls.

 

O2 has identified around 500 accounts that were using fraudulently obtained SIM cards, which have now been closed down by its investigations team.

Det Supt Bob Wishart, from the City of London Police Economic Crime Directorate, said:

 

"21st century policing presents new challenges as organised criminal gangs seek to exploit technological advances for illegal gain.

 

This complex and extensive international telecom fraud set up by KUMAR, LONE and

AKMAL provides further evidence of the challenges the counter fraud community is facing. But this successful prosecution shows what an effective force the telecom industry and police is when they work in collaboration to combat crime.

 

"I want to pay special tribute to the 02 investigators, who, along with my staff compiled an effective prosecution case on behalf of the Crown Prosecution Service. Their hard work has ensured these three fraudsters have been brought to justice and that mobile phone companies are more alert to the threat organised crime gangs pose to their business."

 

Ashok Kumar, 26, Mohammed Akmal, 46, and Fahad Lone, 38, were all found guilty of conspiracy to defraud and money laundering and were given concurrent prison sentences of five years each.

To easier make my point I'm going to simplify that above story by saying the above crooks used only two SIMS.

 

As in the above:

SIM A stolen from shop

 

but lets also imagine they used:

SIM B stolen from house (for example)

 

As in the above article they used both SIMS to rack up huge bills to International premium rate numbers. Presumably the exact same criminal laws were broken relating to both SIMS.

 

As in the above article O2 sent these huge bills that they obviously must have suspected were the result of some criminal activity to the billing addresses. One to the false address(SIM A) the crooks set up and one to the real address(SIM B).

 

In all cases like this the Networks always insist the 'owner' of SIM B is liable for these types of bills despite the bill obviously being the result of fraud.

 

Now if the SIMS A and B were credit cards the same "Cardholder Not Present" would be used to decide whether criminal fraud has been committed. The Network Operator appear to be using a "Victim Not Present" policy.

 

Yes I know there is a legal contract on SIM B but whether that would be enforceable in court to force the victim to pay this type of bill is another question.

I just wanted to post this to highlight the double standards the Networks are using concerning fraud affecting them and fraud affecting their customers.

Edited December 12, 2010 by goodwill

[buzby]

Of course, if users PIN protect their SIM cards, they'll have nothing to worry about.

 

It's the same as leaving you front door unlocked. It's careless and just asking for trouble when criminals become involved.

[goodwill]

Of course, if users PIN protect their SIM cards, they'll have nothing to worry about.

 

It's the same as leaving you front door unlocked. It's careless and just asking for trouble when criminals become involved.

now is that really relevant to the actual specific point of the post

 

'I just wanted to post this to highlight the double standards the Networks are using concerning fraud affecting them and fraud affecting their customers'

[locutus]

I think it's good to post advice to protect yourself in advance not just arguments to fight the fallout if the worst does happen.

 

You are right that there are double standards. If someone is overcharged in this same situation, they should youse your post as a strong argument.

 

If you add a sim C (such as mine, which is a pin protected sim) I would only suffer loss of service until a replacement sim arrived, and no racked up phone bill.

[Brian1951]

'I just wanted to post this to highlight the double standards the Networks are using concerning fraud affecting them and fraud affecting their customers'

 

@Goodwill,

 

Like you, I have been following this case and agree how it shows up the double standards that not only O2 are employing but the City Of London Police.

 

I feel that your points seem to have fallen on deaf ears here as to really understand the points you are making you have to have been a victim of a S. C. A. M. and have first hand knowledge with the way you are treated by ALL the networks. Also how the City Of London Police look on cases of mobile phone fraud when reported to them by a member of the public, slightly different to the way they have acted in this case. Not the grey area of Law anymore as they had told me, why is that?

 

Yes we are talking about quite a bit of cash that O2 have been S.C.R.E.W.E.D. (Or Fraud/Theft) but it is chicken feed to O2 compared to Joe Public who puts £20 on their PAYG phone only to have it STOLEN by premium rate cowboys. Who feels the loss the most?

 

I must to admit to feeling a little pleased when I read how O2 had been screwed, it couldn't have happened to a nicer 'customer caring' company :smile: (Joke). Perhaps they will realise how their customers feel when they have money stolen from their accounts. In our case the Networks have an end user to charge for the S.C.A.M., us the victim. In their case no end user, no money (very sad). Hence the Court Case.

 

:whoo:

Edited December 13, 2010 by Brian1951