Same Obligations, Leaner Teams: Scam Liability and the Digital-First Institution

Sponsored by:

Digital-first institutions are being pulled into the same scam-liability perimeter as larger banks: without the same teams, systems or balance-sheet depth behind them. The question is no longer whether they will be held responsible for scam losses, but how quickly they can investigate, evidence and remediate them when things go wrong. 

Across APAC, that shift has moved from policy design to supervisory practice. The Philippines, under its newly effective AFASA framework, is pushing restitution onto firms that fail to upgrade fraud controls. Singapore’s Shared Responsibility Framework is already producing payouts. Thailand apportions losses by negligence across banks, wallet providers and telcos. Indonesia requires named anti-fraud accountability, certified oversight and three-day incident reporting. 

Australia shows where the pressure is heading. Proposed anti-scam rules would make reimbursement faster and liability harder to avoid, while recent enforcement has already exposed operational gaps. A major global bank was ordered to pay AUD 35 million after failures that included taking an average of 144 days to investigate scam reports, against a 21-day standard. 

For digital banks, PSPs, e-money issuers, lenders, remittance firms and wallet providers, liability is increasingly being apportioned by conduct, not by size. This webinar will examine where liability now sits, whether investigation speed is becoming a governed metric, and how firms should respond when regulators examine both failures at once: accounts drained by scams, and accounts locked with no clear route back. 

The discussion will also address the architecture problem behind many delays: two teams, two platforms, one customer, and where automation can earn its place by improving triage, case handling, and investigation speed in ways that remain explainable, auditable, and accountable.