Business Email Scams Cost More than $1 Billion in Losses in 2018, FBI Says
Business email compromise schemes and payroll diversion tactics led to total monetary losses of $1.3 billion in 2018, according to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center 2018 Internet Crime Report published earlier this week.
April 29, 2019 at 01:00 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
Business email compromise schemes and payroll diversion tactics led to total monetary losses of $1.3 billion in 2018, according to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center 2018 Internet Crime Report published earlier this week.
The center received 20,373 business email compromises and email account compromise complaints in 2018, which led to a loss of over $1.2 billion. The center also received approximately 100 complaints of payroll diversion with a combined loss of $100 million.
Peter Baldwin, a partner at Drinker Biddle & Reath in New York, said he believes when this report comes out again next year, the numbers for both scams will have gone up. The crimes do not cost a lot of money to perpetrate, and the payoff can be in the millions of dollars.
“As long as [cyber criminals] are successful, I don't think these attacks are going to abate,” Baldwin said.
Edward McAndrew, a partner at DLA Piper in Washington, D.C., said this report shows companies have more to worry about than data breaches.
“We're not just talking about the exfiltration of personal information to be sold on the dark web,” McAndrew said. “What we're talking about now is financial fraud that is technologically facilitated.”
The email schemes and payroll diversion attacks involve cyber criminals spoofing emails of senior executives and directing employees to make payments to accounts controlled by the attacker. The report noted email spoofing has advanced over the last five years. In 2013, the FBI was seeing cybercriminals spoofing only the emails of the C-suite. Now criminals are spoofing the emails of vendors and lawyers.
The scams should be on corporate counsel's radar because they are relatively unsophisticated, Baldwin said. He explained the payroll diversion attacks are not as well-known because they appear to be a newer type of scam.
McAndrew said this is a problem beyond the information technology department's control and that IT needs to be involved with the legal department to help prevent and mitigate these kinds of attacks.
He said the general counsel and the legal department should work with the IT department to help train employees to recognize the signs of these kinds of attacks.
The key to preventing these kinds of attacks is largely employee training. Baldwin said there may be a way to block certain emails from high-risk internet protocol addresses though many cybercriminals are sophisticated enough to work get through those safeguards.
“At the end of the day it comes down to better and more comprehensive training,” Baldwin said.
When these kinds of attacks do occur, the general counsel is best situated to quarterback the company's response. McAndrew said there are legal implications the general counsel will need to navigate through and will likely face questions from regulators.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1The Key Moves in the Reshuffling German Legal Market as 2025 Dawns
- 2Social Media Celebrities Clash in $100M Lawsuit
- 3Federal Judge Sets 2026 Admiralty Bench Trial in Baltimore Bridge Collapse Litigation
- 4Trump Media Accuses Purchaser Rep of Extortion, Harassment After Merger
- 5Judge Slashes $2M in Punitive Damages in Sober-Living Harassment Case
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