“从下面看”:授权推送支付欺诈的阻力和变化

Jane Ngan
{"title":"“从下面看”:授权推送支付欺诈的阻力和变化","authors":"Jane Ngan","doi":"10.1016/j.jeconc.2025.100166","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Discourses on Authorised Push Payment fraud (“APPF”), through which a victim is deceived into authorising fund transfers to a fraudster, often converged on normative questions of victim negligence and liability. Recent regulatory changes in the UK, which introduced a new mandatory reimbursement scheme for APPF victims and greater transparency in anti-fraud performance by financial institutions, marked a perceptive shift in the responsibility for fraud prevention and detection. These developments marked the latest flashpoint in the long simmering tension between economic imperatives, technology development and crime control. This study critically retraces the emergence of APPF in the UK within a broader socio-economic arc, during which competitive pressures from online commerce motivated the development of instantaneous payment settlement technology, despite known fraud risks. At the same time, as the state progressively devolved anti-fraud responsibilities to the private sector, an onward liability shift to the individual followed, under the guise of “consumer education”. Through the evaluation of documentary records, parliamentary committee inquiries, victims’ testimonies and interviews conducted by the author, the study highlights the dominance of a new form of rationality anchored on individual responsibility for fraud detection. It mobilises Habermasian discourse ethics to analyse speech acts from institutional actors “above”, and those from victims’ experiences “below”, revealing the contradictions between bureaucratic obfuscation of structural failings and painful accounts of personal loss. It is contended that personal testimonies resisted abstraction, and demanded recognition of shared precarity and mutual interdependence upon which social life depends.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":100775,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Economic Criminology","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100166"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“The view from below”: Resistance and change in Authorised Push Payment Fraud\",\"authors\":\"Jane Ngan\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jeconc.2025.100166\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Discourses on Authorised Push Payment fraud (“APPF”), through which a victim is deceived into authorising fund transfers to a fraudster, often converged on normative questions of victim negligence and liability. Recent regulatory changes in the UK, which introduced a new mandatory reimbursement scheme for APPF victims and greater transparency in anti-fraud performance by financial institutions, marked a perceptive shift in the responsibility for fraud prevention and detection. These developments marked the latest flashpoint in the long simmering tension between economic imperatives, technology development and crime control. This study critically retraces the emergence of APPF in the UK within a broader socio-economic arc, during which competitive pressures from online commerce motivated the development of instantaneous payment settlement technology, despite known fraud risks. At the same time, as the state progressively devolved anti-fraud responsibilities to the private sector, an onward liability shift to the individual followed, under the guise of “consumer education”. Through the evaluation of documentary records, parliamentary committee inquiries, victims’ testimonies and interviews conducted by the author, the study highlights the dominance of a new form of rationality anchored on individual responsibility for fraud detection. It mobilises Habermasian discourse ethics to analyse speech acts from institutional actors “above”, and those from victims’ experiences “below”, revealing the contradictions between bureaucratic obfuscation of structural failings and painful accounts of personal loss. It is contended that personal testimonies resisted abstraction, and demanded recognition of shared precarity and mutual interdependence upon which social life depends.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100775,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Economic Criminology\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100166\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Economic Criminology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949791425000429\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Economic Criminology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949791425000429","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于授权推送支付欺诈(APPF)的讨论,往往集中在受害者疏忽和责任的规范性问题上,受害者被欺骗,授权向欺诈者转移资金。英国最近的监管改革,为APPF受害者引入了一项新的强制性报销计划,并提高了金融机构反欺诈表现的透明度,标志着欺诈预防和检测责任的明显转变。这些发展标志着经济需求、技术发展和犯罪控制之间长期紧张关系的最新爆发点。这项研究批判性地追溯了英国APPF在更广泛的社会经济范围内的出现,在此期间,尽管存在已知的欺诈风险,但来自在线商务的竞争压力推动了即时支付结算技术的发展。与此同时,随着国家逐步将反欺诈责任移交给私营部门,在“消费者教育”的幌子下,责任也随之转移到个人身上。通过对文献记录、议会委员会调查、受害者证词和作者进行的访谈的评估,该研究强调了一种新的理性形式的主导地位,这种理性形式以欺诈检测的个人责任为基础。它运用哈贝马斯的话语伦理学来分析“上层”的制度行为者和“下层”的受害者经历者的言论行为,揭示了官僚对结构性失败的混淆和对个人损失的痛苦描述之间的矛盾。有人认为,个人证词抵制抽象,并要求承认社会生活所依赖的共同的不稳定性和相互依赖性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“The view from below”: Resistance and change in Authorised Push Payment Fraud
Discourses on Authorised Push Payment fraud (“APPF”), through which a victim is deceived into authorising fund transfers to a fraudster, often converged on normative questions of victim negligence and liability. Recent regulatory changes in the UK, which introduced a new mandatory reimbursement scheme for APPF victims and greater transparency in anti-fraud performance by financial institutions, marked a perceptive shift in the responsibility for fraud prevention and detection. These developments marked the latest flashpoint in the long simmering tension between economic imperatives, technology development and crime control. This study critically retraces the emergence of APPF in the UK within a broader socio-economic arc, during which competitive pressures from online commerce motivated the development of instantaneous payment settlement technology, despite known fraud risks. At the same time, as the state progressively devolved anti-fraud responsibilities to the private sector, an onward liability shift to the individual followed, under the guise of “consumer education”. Through the evaluation of documentary records, parliamentary committee inquiries, victims’ testimonies and interviews conducted by the author, the study highlights the dominance of a new form of rationality anchored on individual responsibility for fraud detection. It mobilises Habermasian discourse ethics to analyse speech acts from institutional actors “above”, and those from victims’ experiences “below”, revealing the contradictions between bureaucratic obfuscation of structural failings and painful accounts of personal loss. It is contended that personal testimonies resisted abstraction, and demanded recognition of shared precarity and mutual interdependence upon which social life depends.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信