The federal government and the ruling Democratic Occasion of Korea (DPK) are forcing monetary corporations to compensate voice phishing victims, no matter who’s at fault, fanning considerations over how far shopper safety ought to go with out distorting incentives within the monetary system, market watchers mentioned Monday.
The transfer seeks to curb quickly rising incidents of economic scams, however many say if banks are to bear the burdens completely, it may in the end result in extra refined rip-off techniques.
Behind the drive is a priority that voice phishing techniques are evolving too quick for particular person clients alone to keep away from falling sufferer to the scams. Nationwide Police Company knowledge confirmed losses from voice phishing exceeded 1.1 trillion gained ($748 million) within the first 11 months of 2025, up greater than 56 % from a 12 months earlier.
In accordance with political circles, the ruling get together’s anti-voice phishing job pressure along with a pan-government job pressure is within the technique of introducing laws beneath the precept of “no-fault compensation.”
The invoice would require banks to reimburse victims as much as a specific amount. Cryptocurrency exchanges might be legally obligated to return funds misplaced to voice phishing scams.
A invoice proposed by Rep. Kang Jun-hyeon of the DPK caps compensation at 50 million gained per case, whereas one other by DPK Rep. Cho In-cheul set the minimal at 10 million gained.
The federal government and ruling get together plan to iron out the 2 proposals and finalize particulars on compensation limits and follow-up procedures.
Monetary corporations, nonetheless, say that the coverage may result in extra refined techniques rising.
“Victims being assured reimbursement will result in lowered shopper consciousness of fraud general, a boon for criminals to use the system by means of extra refined scams,” a monetary group official mentioned on situation of anonymity.
The payments exempt circumstances involving intentional wrongdoing or gross negligence, however this isn’t sufficient of a safeguard since banks lack investigative authority to find out whether or not a sufferer was at fault.
“The invoice is understandably about holding banks extra accountable within the context of shopper safety. However whether or not the transfer would result in a desired final result is sort of uncertain since they don’t have the investigative or authorized authority to find out the victims’ intention or gross negligence,” he mentioned.
Banks additionally say the transfer as an alternative would result in tighter opinions of shopper requests for account openings and fund transfers, proscribing general monetary entry for strange shoppers.
“The purpose is to reinforce shopper safety however the invoice may undermine shopper comfort simply as a lot. Whether or not shifting extra duty onto monetary entities would cut back fraud stays to be seen, with lingering considerations of limitations unintentionally being lowered for organized voice phishing rings.”
