[sgbuffett]

This may become another Lehman minibonds incident where banks just blame the customers despite customers trusting sms that appear to come from the banks.

In Lehman minibond ..To get something back the MAS let the bank decide who they will compensate by deciding whether they were educated, etc.

Here they might decide compensation based on whether you are should have been able to figure out it was a scam or not by deciding based on IT knowledge. Just like minibonds some will not get because they will argue that victim should know better...just like in Lehman Minibonds.

The bank might not compensate anyone because doing so means they admit their system has flaws. Only MAS and legal action will compel them.

I see many parallels  between Lehman minibonds and this:

1. People trust what bank say....Lehman minibond was sold by bank RM as safe products. They target people who kept fixed deposit at the bank.

2. In this scam people trust that bank is secure and sms from bank is trusted. Scammer target people who trust the bank.

3. Victims are those who normally don't take risks with big sums in savings and FD accounts.

4. Banks will blame customers for what happen by taking cover in legal clauses. For example banks are not  liable if you give your security credentials to third party.

5. MAS sided with banks to blame customers despite products were sold by RM at the bank. MAS said victims should know the risk.

6. I don't see why they would take a different stance in the current case. They have room to blame customers for clicking link to fake site.

Lesson learnt from Lehman minibonds

1. Victims should start contacting each other and form a group.

2. Discuss what to do to get more favorable outcomes.

3. Share their experience.

When you keep quiet, things just get swept under carpet.

The losses in Lehman minibonds was even much larger but initial response of MAS was not to do anything to help victims.
That changed only when victims formed up to take action.