Ireland and the United Kingdom various accounts.18 A further challenge surrounding this scamdemic’s rise to popularity the reluctance of a company or banking institutions to admit to being attacked owing to the negative public image this would create. In the UK, there exists jurisprudence from ZAM v CFM and TFW19 for the anonymization of blackmail plaintiff cases. While in Ireland there is merely a common law power to anonymize as shown by decisions from Kelly J in Medical Council v Anonymous20. This has led to the demand of a strengthening call-in legislation to ensure banks and consumers akin act bona fide if they know their reputation is protected against these cybercrimes. 21 Conclusion It will be interesting to note which other jurisdictions follow the UK’s lead in the fight against phishing and push fraud scams. As banking practices continue to evolve symbiotically with technology it’s truly imperative to strip duties back to their simplistic truths. Upholding legal obligations for banks and customers akin. It would be “commercially unrealistic” for a bank to require its staff to question every authorised payment instruction, regardless of the amount, and impractical to set a threshold level at which such questioning may become necessary. However, hope remains in regard to reimbursement for those customers or banks who have been victims of considerable losses due to ubiquitous scams.
Aja McClanahan, ‘How to Identify a Scammer’ (Experian, 25 March 2022) <https://www.experian.com/blogs/ask-experian/how-to-identify-scammer/> accessed 27 March 2022. 19 ZAM v CFM and TFW [2013] EW 662 (QB) 20 Medical Council v Anonymous [2019] IEHC 109 21 Stephen O’Connor, ‘The Perils of Hacking: First Criminal Charge Under New Cyber Crime Legislation’ (Thought Leadership, 8 March 2022) <https://thoughtleadership.leman.ie/post/102gr07/the-perils-of-hacking-first-criminal-chargeunder-new-cyber-crime-legislation/> accessed 27 March 2022. 18
91
