Telephone Deception
According to the statistics of the Hong Kong Police Force, in 2017, police received a total of 991 telephone deception reports, with an average of 2.7 reports received per day. Telephone deception accounts for 14% of all types of deception cases in Hong Kong, involving a total loss of approximately HK$230 million suffered by victims, an increase of 3.5% comparing to 2016. Among the 991 victims suffering from telephone deception, about one-third were student, and over half of them were aged below 30. There are three common modus operandi of telephone deception: "Pretend Mainland Officials", “Guess Who” and "Detained Son". “Pretend Mainland Officials” accounted for 70.4% of all telephone deception cases, “Guess Who” and “Detained Son” accounted for 7.2% and 22.2% respectively:
In 2017, there were 837 cases whereby fraudsters successfully defrauded victims of money. Various modus operandi were employed including pretending to be the Hong Kong immigration officers (45.6%), Mainland law enforcement agents (38.1%), impersonating staff of courier companies (8.9%), staff of telecommunication companies (5.4%), other law enforcement agencies (1.3%) and other false identities (0.7%).
Pretend Mainland Officials
The most common modus operandi involve fraudsters pretending to be other public officials and giving victims voice message phone calls. The victims first receive incoming call display showing the same phone number as the public offices and are diverted to other fraudsters who claim themselves law enforcement agents in the Mainland and allege the victims of being involved in criminal activities.
To identify Victim and suspicious transaction in “Pretend Mainland Officials” scam, money service operators should refer to the following:
| 1. | Victims of telephone deception can be anyone at any age. However, most of the victims are mainly housewives and retired persons |
| 2. | Victims were mostly nervous. Some kept talking on the phone and appeared to be acting upon someone's instruction during remittance processes |
| 3. | They showed urgent needs to remit the money to mainland bank accounts of their relatives/friends, but in fact they did not know who the account holders were |
| 4. | They claimed the need of investment or prevaricated about the reasons of remittances, and remitted monies to their own China back accounts |
| 5. | The amount of remittances ranged from a few thousands to a few ten-thousands, sometimes hundred-thousand odd |
| 6. | In a few occasions, Victims repeatedly remitted monies to the same designated mainland bank accounts within a day or a few days, with the amount of remittance gradually increasing by day |
Guess Who am I
Swindler made a random call and asked Victim to "Guess who am I?". Upon Victim's reply, Swindler pretended as his/her relative/friend in order to gain trust. Swindler then left Victim a mainland phone number for future contact. On the next day, Swindler used the same number to call Victim again and alleged: being indebted; being detained by China police; being hospitalized after accident; or other excuses to ask for urgent money. Once Victim fell for the excuses, Swindler asked Victim to remit him/her money.
To identify Victim and suspicious transaction in "Guess Who am I" scam, money service operators should refer to the following:
| 1. | In general, most of the victims were middle-aged to elderly persons (years 50+), mainly housewives and retired persons |
| 2. | Victims were mostly nervous. They kept talking to the phone and appeared to be acting upon someone's instruction during remittance processes |
| 3. | They showed urgent needs to remit the money to mainland bank accounts of their relatives/friends, but in fact they did not know who the account holders were |
| 4. | The amount of remittances ranged from a few thousands to a few ten-thousands, sometimes hundred-thousand odd |
| 5. | In a few occasions, Victims repeatedly remitted monies to the same designated mainland bank accounts within a day or a few days, with the amount of remittance gradually increasing by day |
Detained Son
Swindler made a random call to Victim, pretending to have his/her son or a family member detained for the reason of indebtedness or for causing trouble in the mainland. Swindler then sought for ransom. Victim became frightened and believed the story. Swindler then ordered him/her not to hang up the phone and asked him/her to withdraw money in cash and bring the money to a designated location for handover/drop-off immediately.
To identify Culprit and suspicious transaction in "Detained Son" scam, money service operators should refer to following:
| 1. | The Culprits collecting crime proceeds from victims were usually mainlanders aged between 23-32 years old. Almost of them were China Two Way Permit holders |
| 2. | During the remittance of crime proceeds, the Culprits were mostly talking on the mobile phone and acted upon someone's instruction over the phone |
| 3. | They mainly remitted Hong Kong Dollars in cash to mainland bank account |
| 4. | The amount normally ranged from a few thousands to few ten-thousands, sometimes hundred-thousand odd |
| 5. | The Culprits might be nervous when being questioned |
| 6. | They showed hesitation or refused to produce proof of identity upon request |
Swindlers take advantage of the "Convenient; Quick; Low cost; and Simple" transaction nature of money service operators to process/deal with deceived monies so as to launder crime proceedings. Our Association encourages licensed money changers to pay attention to flustered customers during remittances. Scams were previously identified by money service operators who proactively enquired the victims during remittances where crimes were intercepted and victims avoided financial loss. Our Association also reminds licensed money changers to dial Anti-Deception Coordination Centre’s (“ADCC”) “Anti-Scam Helpline 18222” around the clock hotline or 999 for immediate assistance in case of emergency. Please report to nearby police station or police officer on patrol or designated unit for help.