DBS Fund transfer not immediate

[a4973]

Have u ever thought that there can be secure means of whitelisting accounts so that fraudsters can't?

Then why not extend that thought further by securing ALL accounts so don't even have to whitelist? It's a cat and mouse game.

 

[wutawa]

Why u think not safe in the first place? Did i miss out something?

i read posts that transfers got stuck or accts got closed. i got 3 standing instructions from posb every mth so my transfers to posb cannot afford to be delayed. my investment acct buying power also depends on cash transfer. any delay means losing buying opportunity.

 

[peppermint7]

i read posts that transfers got stuck or accts got closed. i got 3 standing instructions from posb every mth so my transfers to posb cannot afford to be delayed. my investment acct buying power also depends on cash transfer. any delay means losing buying opportunity.

Accounts got closed? That's scary and uncommon..

 

[yiron]

Then why not extend that thought further by securing ALL accounts so don't even have to whitelist? It's a cat and mouse game.

If you want, you can.

Just that to deter fraud, the whitelisting process itself may involve in-person authentication and further KYC due diligence - potentially front-loading the same questions that the banks will ask when they flag suspicious transactions (who are u transferring to, purpose of transfer, relationship with payee, source of funds etc.).

If u are willing to put in that effort every time u have a new payee, that is technically doable.

 

[wira]

i read posts that transfers got stuck or accts got closed. i got 3 standing instructions from posb every mth so my transfers to posb cannot afford to be delayed. my investment acct buying power also depends on cash transfer. any delay means losing buying opportunity.

I think if it’s a standing instructions that has been there for long period and not a newly created payee bank should not detect that as a high risk

 

[peppermint7]

If you want, you can.

Just that to deter fraud, the whitelisting process itself may involve in-person authentication and further KYC due diligence - potentially front-loading the same questions that the banks will ask when they flag suspicious transactions (who are u transferring to, purpose of transfer, relationship with payee, source of funds etc.).

If u are willing to put in that effort every time u have a new payee, that is technically doable.

Banks can just give us a choice to opt back physical token usage can already. No need so troublesome to ask us for repeated verifications. On one hand they push digital. On the other hand they want assurance these tranx are not from scammers. Now they know physical token works after influx of scams ever since they do away with physical token. They should not inconvenience users especially the elderly who are not so tech savvy. No wonder i saw many elderly visiting the banks personally and willingly waited in long queues to get things done.

 

[reddevil0728]

Banks can just give us a choice to opt back physical token usage can already. No need so troublesome to ask us for repeated verifications. On one hand they push digital. On the other hand they want assurance these tranx are not from scammers. Now they know physical token works after influx of scams ever since they do away with physical token. They should not inconvenience users especially the elderly who are not so tech savvy. No wonder i saw many elderly visiting the banks personally and willingly waited in long queues to get things done.

i think they should provide an option to opt for physical token that comes with a subscription fee. that way it is self funding in nature

 

[wira]

Banks can just give us a choice to opt back physical token usage can already. No need so troublesome to ask us for repeated verifications. On one hand they push digital. On the other hand they want assurance these tranx are not from scammers. Now they know physical token works after influx of scams ever since they do away with physical token. They should not inconvenience users especially the elderly who are not so tech savvy. No wonder i saw many elderly visiting the banks personally and willingly waited in long queues to get things done.

Do note physical token is also not foolproof ...esp if you fall prey to phishing scams.
Unwitting users will still enter the physical token code into phishing site and allow scammers to take over the accounts.

 

[peppermint7]

Do note physical token is also not foolproof ...esp if you fall prey to phishing scams.
Unwitting users will still enter the physical token code into phishing site and allow scammers to take over the accounts.

Nothing is foolproof. At least this can lessen the scam occurrences by a lot. Anything to do with digital is the easiest for hackers. Worldwide NFT, Crypto also can be stolen by naively clicking random links. These hackers scammers are way smarter / digital savvy than us. To protect us commoners is best to use back caveman method at times. For us we only need to ensure we only log in via bank direct website itself with digital lock.

 

[reddevil0728]

Nothing is foolproof. At least this can lessen the scam occurrences by a lot. Anything to do with digital is the easiest for hackers. Worldwide NFT, Crypto also can be stolen by naively clicking random links. These hackers scammers are way smarter / digital savvy than us. To protect us commoners is best to use back caveman method at times.

actually the best protection is oneself.

but somehow there seems to be a lot of abdication of one's own responsibility/accountability

 

[white_prince]

Not new payee, it’s transferring to an account (another bank) under my name. It is big amount according to them but I have done much higher before.

They wont know its under your own name.
This delay is to protect your money from being taken without your knowledge.

 

[ahnyaahnya]

Banks can just give us a choice to opt back physical token usage can already. No need so troublesome to ask us for repeated verifications. On one hand they push digital. On the other hand they want assurance these tranx are not from scammers. Now they know physical token works after influx of scams ever since they do away with physical token. They should not inconvenience users especially the elderly who are not so tech savvy. No wonder i saw many elderly visiting the banks personally and willingly waited in long queues to get things done.

I have physical tokens from all the local banks. Even had a new one issued to me by DBS when the old one ran out of battery.

But the ang moh banks no give

 

[ahnyaahnya]

Not new payee, it’s transferring to an account (another bank) under my name. It is big amount according to them but I have done much higher before.

Now they are required to be more careful.
BTW even if the payee name you enter is same as yours, there's no guarantee that it is your bank account . The bank does not have the capability to check the payee bank records to see the actual name. So you could be paying to a scammer.
Every month I receive remittances where the payee name is " Auntie" . And used to receive remittances where the name of payee is someone else

 

[reddevil0728]

Now they are required to be more careful.
BTW even if the payee name you enter is same as yours, there's no guarantee that it is your bank account . The bank does not have the capability to check the payee bank records to see the actual name. So you could be paying to a scammer.
Every month I receive remittances where the payee name is " Auntie" . And used to receive remittances where the name of payee is someone else

did u flag those?

 

[sglandscape]

Now they are required to be more careful.
BTW even if the payee name you enter is same as yours, there's no guarantee that it is your bank account . The bank does not have the capability to check the payee bank records to see the actual name. So you could be paying to a scammer.
Every month I receive remittances where the payee name is " Auntie" . And used to receive remittances where the name of payee is someone else

This is hilarious, "auntie"

anyway they can check the name if you have received funds from that bank account before, so it's a bit of balancing convenience vs overly conservative fraud control.

So far most banks operating here seems ok, except for the big screw up by OCBC then they now become very conservative that I don't even dare to bank with them anymore, don't know when they may increase the cooling period even further.

 

[ahnyaahnya]

did u flag those?

Why would I do that?
They were my tenants sending money to me.
Point is : you can write anything in as the payee. The remitting bank won't know whether that's the actual name of the account holder.
So whether you write your own name as payee, the bank still has to take the same precautions... whoever the stated payee is makes no difference

 

[ahnyaahnya]

This is hilarious, "auntie"

anyway they can check the name if you have received funds from that bank account before, so it's a bit of balancing convenience vs overly conservative fraud control.

So far most banks operating here seems ok, except for the big screw up by OCBC then they now become very conservative that I don't even dare to bank with them anymore, don't know when they may increase the cooling period even further.

12 hours is enough. But some people are too negligent, then blame the bank for everything.
Like, how can they not know that a new payee was added. AFAIK, the banks will SMS us when a new payee is being added.
Even for the OCBC cases, the account holders contributed to the problem. Other banks' account holders also had been scammed before that. Just that the volume was large at one shot for the OCBC cases.

 

[ahnyaahnya]

Does DBS now have a waiting period for adding new payee? Or still no?

 

[reddevil0728]

Why would I do that?
They were my tenants sending money to me.
Point is : you can write anything in as the payee. The remitting bank won't know whether that's the actual name of the account holder.
So whether you write your own name as payee, the bank still has to take the same precautions... whoever the stated payee is makes no difference

Oh the name of payee is someone else but you are the correct and intended recipient.

I thought its intended for someone else

 

[reddevil0728]

12 hours is enough. But some people are too negligent, then blame the bank for everything.
Like, how can they not know that a new payee was added. AFAIK, the banks will SMS us when a new payee is being added.
Even for the OCBC cases, the account holders contributed to the problem. Other banks' account holders also had been scammed before that. Just that the volume was large at one shot for the OCBC cases.

Some people…

it’s never their fault.

Always others