Wire Fraud is the Fastest Growing Real Estate Cybercrime in the U.S.
According to the FBI, the Internet Crime Complaint Center saw a 480 percent increase in the number of complaints filed last year by those in the real…
November 28, 2017 at 05:45 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
According to the FBI, the Internet Crime Complaint Center saw a 480 percent increase in the number of complaints filed last year by those in the real estate industry. Most of these complaints were related to wire fraud, a scam becoming more common in the real estate industry. This past June, news broke that a real estate phishing scam cost a New York State Supreme Court judge over $1 million.
ERA Real Estate CEO Sue Yannaconne sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss why wire fraud is a growing trend in the real estate industry. She said it's hard to predict exactly why wire fraud is growing, but, aside from the profit related to the crime, one reason might be that more people are reporting the hacks.
“Over the last several years, we've heard much more about cybercrime in the media and our awareness has heightened, meaning victims could be more likely to report than they were in the past. What we know for sure is that wire fraud in real estate is on the rise–by a whole lot,” she explained.
In fact, earlier this month, the FBI told the Washington Post that in 2017, cyber criminals stole or attempted to steal almost $1 billion from real estate purchase transactions. That figure is up from $19 million in 2016, which makes wire fraud the fastest growing real estate cybercrime in the U.S.
“As with any other target for cyber criminals, if there is an opportunity to profit, the criminals will come. That said, there are likely three reasons real estate is attractive to cyber criminals,” Yannaconne said. “One, because of the diversity of targets. Second, because they prey on unknowing home buyers who don't know how to spot a scam, and three, because of the amounts involved–it is not uncommon for buyers to wire transfers for hundreds of thousands of dollars.”
So how can this be prevented from happening to homeowners, sellers, mortgage brokers and lawyers? Mortgage brokers, lawyers and agents need to consider beefing up their internal security systems and may want to consider cyber insurance, although they'd need to do their due diligence since this form of insurance is relatively new.
According to Yannaconne, homeowners looking to buy can do several things to protect themselves including: Know when you could be targeted and be suspicious and alert as the most vulnerable time is right before a transaction closes and homebuyers prepare to send a wire transfer; be wary of wire transfer emails that change the instructions at the last minute or ask you to click a link or enter a password; scan the email for typos or other small inconsistencies–including the email address sending the instructions; always verify the wire transfer information you received in the email by phone or in person; consider using a cashier's check instead of a wire transfer; and change your password regularly and avoid emailing about wiring instructions on an unsecured network, like that at a local coffee shop.
There are two victims in every scam: the entity whose email is hacked and the homebuyer whose money is stolen.
“For the email hack victim, a telltale sign is an email asking the recipient to click on a link,” she explained. “For the homebuyer victim, there are several signs that homebuyers should be wary of–last minute emails changing the wire transfer instructions, emails that have errors in either the body language or the email addresses themselves and emails that ask for recipients to enter a password or click on an external link.” Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, legal technology, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation, and more.
Amanda G. Ciccatelli is a Freelance Journalist for Corporate Counsel and InsideCounsel, where she covers intellectual property, legal technology, patent litigation, cybersecurity, innovation, and more.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLegal Departments’ Lack of Third-Party Oversight Leaving Small, Midsized Banks Exposed
4 minute readTen Best Practices to Protect Your Organization Against Cyber Threats
7 minute readSEC Fines 4 Companies $7M for Downplaying Breaches Tied to Massive SolarWinds Hack
Trending Stories
- 1Cravath Elevates 7 to Partnership, Up From Last Year
- 2Kline & Specter Hit With Lawsuit From Another Former Associate
- 3USPTO Director Kathi Vidal Announces Resignation Ahead of Administration Change
- 4As Gen AI Acceptance Grows, Lawyers Race to Mitigate Risks
- 5Decisions Have 'Real-Life Consequences': Juvenile Court Judge Considered for Appellate Bench
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250