Published by Wanda Rich
Posted on July 3, 2025
An interview with Anurag Mohapatra, SME and Director of Fraud Strategy, NiCE Actimize.
In this interview with Global Banking & Finance Review, Anurag Mohapatra reveals his research on the varying approaches to stopping scams across Asia and compares them to other global approaches. He also shares his vision on how fighting scams will play out in the next three to five years, and notes his belief that shared, collective data is the key to solving these challenges.
What are the most notable insights emerging from your findings regarding Asia’s landscape of scam response strategies?
What strikes me most was the wide variation in approaches across different Asian countries. Some nations—like Thailand, the Philippines, and Hong Kong—are beginning to hold banks, telcos, and digital platforms jointly responsible when scams occur, sharing the burden of accountability. Conversely, countries such as India, Vietnam, and Indonesia tend to place most of the blame—and the financial loss—on the victims themselves.
To better understand this patchwork, in my research I grouped countries into four distinct groups based on two criteria: whether they reimburse scam victims and whether they have strong cross-sector coordination involving banks, telecoms, and regulators. Thailand exemplifies the proactive end of the spectrum, having enacted laws that hold multiple sectors liable for scams. On the other extreme, Vietnam and Indonesia focus primarily on blocking scam messages and calls, with limited pathways for victims to recover lost funds.
In between are countries like Singapore and South Korea, which offer limited reimbursement—mostly for phishing scams—and do not extend this support to romance or investment fraud. This diversity illustrates that Asia’s scam response is not a single story but a spectrum where each country is at a different point in its journey.
In your assessment, what trajectory is Asia likely to follow over the next three to four years when it comes to scam responses? Will it adopt a model resembling the UK's approach or that of Australia's?
That is a compelling question. Let us briefly compare the two models: The UK adopts a mandatory reimbursement approach, where banks may be required to compensate victims, sharing liability across both the sender’s and receiver’s institutions. Australia, on the other hand, prioritizes prevention—using measures like confirmation of payee, identity verification, warnings, and payment delays to stop scams before they happen.
Looking ahead, I see Asia adopting a mixed approach. Countries like Thailand and Hong Kong are moving toward the UK-style model, emphasizing shared responsibility and victim reimbursement. Meanwhile, others such as Singapore and South Korea are leaning toward Australia’s prevention-first strategy, with strong measures to prevent scams but limited redress for victims.
Overall, the region is trending toward shared responsibility but not outright mandating reimbursement. Many countries will experiment with voluntary sector agreements or pilot programs before formalizing stricter rules, balancing prevention and redress based on local contexts.
Do you anticipate that regional collaboration and convergence in scam response strategies will increase, or do you expect the landscape to remain fragmented?
I believe fragmentation will persist in the near future—and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Asia is not a monolithic market; it is incredibly diverse—geographically, politically, and culturally. Countries like Singapore, Japan, and Hong Kong have mature institutions and robust consumer protections, while others like Cambodia or Myanmar are still establishing foundational systems.
Some nations—such as Hong Kong and the Philippines—are experiencing real momentum driven by regulators and public pressure to improve their responses. Others are still figuring out the roles that banks, telecoms, and platforms should play.
While we may see some shared tools, like scam reporting portals or fraud intelligence networks, a fully unified regional framework seems unlikely in the near term. Instead, I anticipate “islands of progress”—countries advancing faster and influencing their neighbors—forming a bottom-up pattern of convergence rather than top-down regional harmonization.
From a global perspective, which approach currently demonstrates greater effectiveness: reimbursement mechanisms or preventive controls?
Both have their merits and their effectiveness depends on implementation. The UK model, with its mandatory reimbursement and shared liability, aims to ensure victims are compensated, fostering trust. Australia’s prevention-first approach attempts to stop scams before they occur, reducing overall losses.
Recent data shows that Australia’s scam losses declined from $2.7 billion in 2023 to $2.0 billion in 2024—an encouraging sign that prevention measures are effective. The UK has also seen some success, with losses decreasing slightly and reimbursements reaching as high as 86% in some cases.
However, the most impactful results come from combining both strategies: robust prevention to stop scams upfront and a clear, fair reimbursement process when prevention fails. This integrated approach builds consumer trust and incentivizes institutions to act responsibly, driving better outcomes.
Given that many countries still assign minimal liability to banks and lack protections for authorized scam payments, do you consider this approach sustainable in the long term?
Absolutely not. The techniques used by scammers are evolving rapidly—social engineering, AI voice clones, fake investment apps—and victims often do everything right but still get tricked into authorizing payments.
In most Asian markets, if someone falls victim, the bank typically responds with “Sorry, you clicked the button,” leaving the victim out of luck. This approach is becoming increasingly unsustainable.
For example, in the U.S., fraud losses hit $10.1 billion in 2024—triple the amount from four years earlier—with a significant share involving authorized payments. Yet, there is no mandated reimbursement, highlighting the need for accountability.
In response, bipartisan bills like the TRAPS Act are emerging to require banks to share liability for scam payments. Without evolving the system to hold institutions accountable, public trust in digital payments risks erosion, and fraud could become an even greater societal problem.
What is one essential aspect of scam response frameworks that remains insufficiently addressed but requires immediate and focused attention?
One area that does not get enough focus is collective intelligence—sharing fraud data across institutions in real time. Currently, most banks operate in silos, detecting scam indicators or blocking transactions locally, but insights are not shared swiftly enough. Scammers, operating as networks, move quickly from one victim to another.
What we need is a system where fraud intelligence—such as flagged accounts, scam scripts, behavioral patterns—is shared instantly across sectors. Early examples include Australia’s National Anti-Scam Centre, which connects different agencies, and Pay.UK in the UK, working on real-time intelligence sharing.
Advancing this concept is critical because a networked defense is essential to counteract increasingly sophisticated scams. The sooner we can share and act on fraud data collectively, the better our chances of staying ahead of scammers.
About Anurag Mohapatra
Anurag Mohapatra is a recognized expert in fraud prevention and financial crime, with over 18 years of experience working with global financial institutions to combat emerging threats. He currently serves as Director of Product Marketing at NiCE Actimize, where he leads strategic initiatives across the enterprise fraud prevention portfolio. Anurag’s background spans services, solution consulting, and product leadership—giving him a unique 360-degree view of financial crime risk and innovation. He is also the creator and host of AI SPY, a podcast exploring the intersection of artificial intelligence and financial crime.
