Curtailing FinCrime on Metaverse
Introduction
On the precipice of a new domain of existence, the metaverse emerges as a digital cosmos, an expanse where the horizon is not sky, but a limitless scope for innovation and imagination. It is a sophisticated fabric woven from the threads of social interaction, leisure, and an accelerated pace of technological progression. This new reality, a virtual landscape stretching beyond the mundane encumbrances of terrestrial life, heralds an evolutionary leap where the laws of physics yield to the boundless potential inherent in our creativity. Yet, the dawn of such a frontier does not escape the spectre of an age-old adversary—financial crime—the shadow that grows in tandem with newfound opportunity, seeping into the metaverse, where crypto-assets are no longer just an alternative but the currency du jour, dazzling beacons for both legitimate pioneers and shades of illicit intent.
The metaverse, by virtue of its design, is a canvas for the digital repaint of society—a three-dimensional realm where the lines between immersive experiences and entertainment blur, intertwining with surreal intimacy within this virtual microcosm. Donning headsets like armor against the banal, individuals become avatars; digital proxies that acquire the ability to move, speak, and perform an array of actions with an ease unattainable in the physical world. Within this alternative reality, users navigate digital topographies, with experiences ranging from shopping in pixelated arcades to collaborating in virtual offices; from witnessing concerts that defy sensory limitations to constructing abodes and palaces from mere codes and clicks—an act of creation no longer beholden to physicality but to the breadth of one's ingenuity.
The Crypto Assets
The lifeblood of this virtual economy pulsates through crypto-assets. These digital tokens represent value or rights held on distributed ledgers—a technology like blockchain, which serves as both a vault and a transparent tapestry, chronicling the pathways of each digital asset. To hop onto the carousel of this economy requires a digital wallet—a storeroom and a gateway for acquisition and trade of these virtual valuables. Cryptocurrencies, with NFTs—Non-fungible Tokens—have accelerated from obscure digital curios to precious artifacts. According to blockchain analytics firm Elliptic, an astonishing figure surpassing US$100 million in NFTs were usurped between July 2021 and July 2022. This rampant heist underlines their captivating allure for virtual certificates. Empowers do not just capture art, music, and gaming, but embody their very soul.
Yet, as the metaverse burgeons, so does the complexity and diversity of financial transgressions. From phishing to sophisticated fraud schemes, criminals craft insidious simulacrums of legitimate havens, aiming to drain the crypto-assets of the unwary. In the preceding year, a daunting figure rose to prominence—the vanishing of US$14 billion worth of crypto-assets, lost to the abyss of deception and duplicity. Hence, social engineering emerges from the shadows, a sort of digital chicanery that preys not upon weaknesses of the system, but upon the psychological vulnerabilities of its users—scammers adorned in the guise of authenticity, extracting trust and assets with Machiavellian precision.
The New Wave of Fincrimes
Extending their tentacles further, perpetrators of cybercrime exploit code vulnerabilities, engage in wash trading, obscuring the trails of money laundering, meander through sanctions evasion, and even dare to fund activities that send ripples of terror across the physical and virtual divide. The intricacies of smart contracts and the decentralized nature of these worlds, designed to be bastions of innovation, morph into paths paved for misuse and exploitation. The openness of blockchain transactions, the transparency that should act as a deterrent, becomes a paradox, a double-edged sword for the law enforcement agencies tasked with delineating the networks of faceless adversaries.
Addressing financial crime in the metaverse is Herculean labour, requiring an orchestra of efforts—harmonious, synchronised—from individual users to mammoth corporations, from astute policymakers to vigilant law enforcement bodies. Users must furnish themselves with critical awareness, fortifying their minds against the siren calls that beckon impetuous decisions, spurred by the anxiety of falling behind. Enterprises, the architects and custodians of this digital realm, are impelled to collaborate with security specialists, to probe their constructs for weak seams, and to reinforce their bulwarks against the sieges of cyber onslaughts. Policymakers venture onto the tightrope walk, balancing the impetus for innovation against the gravitas of robust safeguards—a conundrum played out on the global stage, as epitomised by the European Union's strides to forge cohesive frameworks to safeguard this new vessel of human endeavour.
The Austrian Example
Consider the case of Austria, where the tapestry of laws entwining crypto-assets spans a gamut of criminal offences, from data breaches to the complex webs of money laundering and the financing of dark enterprises. Users and corporations alike must become cartographers of local legislation, charting their ventures and vigilances within the volatile seas of the metaverse.
Upon the sands of this virtual frontier, we must not forget: that the metaverse is more than a hive of bits and bandwidth. It crystallises our collective dreams, echoes our unspoken fears, and reflects the range of our ambitions and failings. It stands as a citadel where the ever-evolving quest for progress should never stray from the compass of ethical pursuit. The cross-pollination of best practices, and the solidarity of international collaboration, are not simply tactics—they are imperatives engraved with the moral codes of stewardship, guiding us to preserve the unblemished spirit of the metaverse.
Conclusion
The clarion call of the metaverse invites us to venture into its boundless expanse, to savour its gifts of connection and innovation. Yet, on this odyssey through the pixelated constellations, we harness vigilance as our star chart, mindful of the mirage of morality that can obfuscate and lead astray. In our collective pursuit to curtail financial crime, we deploy our most formidable resource—our unity—conjuring a bastion for human ingenuity and integrity. In this, we ensure that the metaverse remains a beacon of awe, safeguarded against the shadows of transgression, and celebrated as a testament to our shared aspiration to venture beyond the realm of the possible, into the extraordinary.
References
- https://www.wolftheiss.com/insights/financial-crime-in-the-metaverse-is-real/
- https://gnet-research.org/2023/08/16/meta-terror-the-threats-and-challenges-of-the-metaverse/
- https://shuftipro.com/blog/the-rising-concern-of-financial-crimes-in-the-metaverse-aml-screening-as-a-solution/
Related Blogs
Pretext
On 20th October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 crores on Google for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in the Android Mobile device ecosystem, apart from issuing cease and desist orders. The CCI also directed Google to modify its conduct within a defined timeline. Smart mobile devices need an operating system (OS) to run applications (apps) and programs. Android is one such mobile operating system that Google acquired in 2005. In the instant matter, the CCI examined various practices of Google w.r.t. licensing of this Android mobile operating system and various proprietary mobile applications of Google (e.g., Play Store, Google Search, Google Chrome, YouTube, etc.).
The Issue
Google was found to be misusing its dominant position in the tech market, and the same was the reason behind the penalty. Google argued about the competitive constraints being faced from Apple. In relation to understanding the extent of competition between Google’s Android ecosystem and Apple’s iOS ecosystem, the CCI noted the differences in the two business models, which affect the underlying incentives of business decisions. Apple’s business is primarily based on a vertically integrated smart device ecosystem that focuses on the sale of high-end smart devices with state-of-the-art software components. In contrast, Google’s business was found to be driven by the ultimate intent of increasing users on its platforms so that they interact with its revenue-earning service, i.e., online searches, which directly affects the sale of online advertising services by Google. It was seen that google had created a dominant position among the android phone manufacturers as they were made to have a set of google apps preinstalled in the device to increase the user’s dependency on google services. The CCI felt that Google had created a dominant position to which they replied that the same operations are done by Apple as well, to which the commission responded that apple is a phone and app manufacturer and they have Apple-owned apps in Apple devices only, but Google here in had made a pseudo mandate for android manufactures to have the google apps pre-installed which is, in turn, a possible way of disrupting the market equilibrium and violative of market practices. The CCI imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,337.76 for abusing its dominant position in multiple markets in India, CCI delineated the following five relevant markets in the present matter –
- The market for licensable OS for smart mobile devices in India
- The market for app store for Android smart mobile OS in India
- The market for general web search services in India
- The market for non-OS specific mobile web browsers in India
- The market for online video hosting platforms (OVHP) in India.
Supreme Courts Opinion
In October 2022, the Competition Commission of India (CCI) ruled that Google, owned by Alphabet Inc, exploited its dominant position in Android and told it to remove restrictions on device makers, including those related to the pre-installation of apps and ensuring exclusivity of its search. Google lost a challenge in the Supreme Court to block the directives, as the learned court refused to put a stay on the imposed penalty, further giving seven days to comply. The Supreme Court has said a lower tribunal—where Google first challenged the Android directives—can continue to hear the company’s appeal and must rule by March 31.
Counterpoint Research estimates that about 97% of 600 million smartphones in India run on Android. Apple has just a 3% share. Hoping to block the implementation of the CCI directives, Google challenged the CCI order in the Supreme Court by warning it could stall the growth of the Android ecosystem. It also said it would be forced to alter arrangements with more than 1,100 device manufacturers and thousands of app developers if the directives kick in. Google has been concerned about India’s decision as the steps are seen as more sweeping than those imposed in the European Commission’s 2018 ruling. There it was fined for putting in place what the Commission called unlawful restrictions on Android mobile device makers. Google is still challenging the record $4.3 billion fine in that case. In Europe, Google made changes later, including letting Android device users pick their default search engine, and said device makers would be able to license the Google mobile application suite separately from the Google Search App or the Chrome browser.
Conclusion
As the world goes deeper into cyberspace, the big tech companies have more control over the industry and the markets, but the same should not turn into anarchy in the global markets. The Tech giants need to be made aware that compliance is the utmost duty for all companies, and enforcement of the law of the land will be maintained no matter what. Earlier India lacked policies and legislation to govern cyberspace, but in the recent proactive stance by the govt, a lot of new bills have been tabled, one of them being the Intermediary Rules 2021, which has laid down the obligations nand duties of the companies by setting up an intermediary in the country. Such bills coupled with such crucial judgments on tech giants will act as a test and barrier for other tech companies who try to flaunt the rules and avoid compliance.
Executive Summary:
Social media is buzzing with a link that claims to offer an iPhone 15 as a gift from LuLu Hypermarket, presented as part of Holi celebrations. This article examines the deceptive tactics behind this fraudulent offer and provides guidance on recognizing and avoiding such scams.
False Claim:
The link being shared is misleading and falsely claims that LuLu Hypermarket is giving away free iPhone 15 phones. This is taking advantage of the Holi festival to trick unsuspecting people. When users click on the link, they are redirected multiple times and end up on a page with LuLu Hypermarket's photo and some simple questions. Fake comments are also used to make the offer seem genuine, but it is all a deception.
The Deceptive Scheme:
The plan uses psychological tricks by linking the offer to a famous brand and a popular celebration. The landing page's simplicity and phoney comments try to make users trust it and feel like they need to act fast, so they'll join the scam.
The Fraudulent Campaign Analysed:
The scammers are using psychological tactics to manipulate people. They're exploiting the trust people have in LuLu Hypermarket and the excitement around the new iPhone 15 during the Holi festival. The fake questionnaire serves no real purpose, but it's a way to engage users and make the scam seem legitimate. Testimonials claiming people have successfully received the iPhone 15 are also fake, designed to create a false sense of credibility. Users are prompted to select a "gift box," which adds an interactive element to draw them in further. When a user selects a box, they're falsely congratulated on winning the iPhone 15, giving them a sense of accomplishment. Finally, users are urged to share the link via WhatsApp to "claim" the gift, spreading the scam to more potential victims.
What do we Analyse? :
- We analyse the deceptive tactics employed by the scam, including psychological manipulation, false engagement techniques, and fake testimonials, all aimed at convincing users of the offer's legitimacy.
Link : (https://sophisticateddistort[.]top/nTiwpTTTT526?llue1696559991144)
- It is important to note that at this particular point, there has not been any official declaration or a proper confirmation of an offer made by Lulu Hypermarket So, people must be very careful when encountering such messages because they are often employed as lures in phishing attacks or misinformation campaigns. Before engaging or transmitting such claims, it is always advisable to authenticate the information from trustworthy sources in order to protect oneself online and prevent the spread of wrongful information
- The campaign is hosted on a third party domain instead of any official Website of LuLu Hypermarket, this raised suspicion. Also the domain was registered last year.
- The intercepted request revealed a connection to a China-linked analytical service, Baidu in the backend.
- Domain Name: sophisticateddistort.top
- Registry Domain ID: D20230629G10001G_04181852-top
- Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.west263.com
- Registrar URL: www.west263.com
- Updated Date: 2023-07-01T02:55:34Z
- Creation Date: 2023-06-29T06:05:00Z
- Registry Expiry Date: 2024-06-29T06:05:00Z
- Registrar: Chengdu west dimension digital
- Registrant State/Province: Shan Xi
- Registrant Country: CN (China)
- Name Server: curt.ns.cloudflare.com
- Name Server: harlee.ns.cloudflare.com
Note: Cybercriminal used Cloudflare technology to mask the actual IP address of the fraudulent website.
CyberPeace Advisory:
- Do not open those messages received from social platforms in which you think that such messages are suspicious or unsolicited. In the beginning, your own discretion can become your best weapon.
- Falling prey to such scams could compromise your entire system, potentially granting unauthorised access to your microphone, camera, text messages, contacts, pictures, videos, banking applications, and more. Keep your cyber world safe against any attacks.
- Never, in any case, reveal such sensitive data as your login credentials and banking details to entities you haven't validated as reliable ones.
- Before sharing any content or clicking on links within messages, always verify the legitimacy of the source. Protect not only yourself but also those in your digital circle.
- For the sake of the truthfulness of offers and messages, find the official sources and companies directly. Verify the authenticity of alluring offers before taking any action.
Conclusion:
During the festive season, as we engage in merrymaking and online activities, we should be mindful of fraudster's exploitation strategies. Another instance is the illegitimate Lulu Hypermarket offer of the upcoming iPhone 15. With the knowledge and carefulness, we can report any suspicious actions to avoid being victims of fraud in this way. Keep in mind the fact that legitimate offers are usually issued by trustworthy sources while if, the offer looks too good to be true, then it is rather a scam.
.webp)
Introduction
Google is set to change its storage and access of users' "Location History" in Google Maps, reducing the data retention period and making it impossible for the company to access it. This change will significantly impact "geofence warrants," a controversial legal tool used by authorities to force Google to hand over information about all users within a given location during a specific timeframe. This decision is a significant win for privacy advocates and criminal defense attorneys who have long decried these warrants.
The company aims to protect people's privacy by removing the repository of location data dating back months or years. Geofence warrants, which provide police with sensitive data on individuals, are considered dangerous and could turn innocent people into suspects.
Understanding Geofence Warrants
Geofence warrants, also known as reverse-location warrants, are used by law enforcement agencies to obtain locational data stored by tech companies within a specified geographical area and timeframe to identify devices near a crime scene. In contrast to general warrants, which allow law enforcement agencies to obtain data of one individual (usually the suspect), geofence warrants enable law enforcement authorities to obtain data for all individuals in a specific location and subsequently track and trace any device that may be linked to a crime scene. Geofence warrants have become a major issue, with law enforcement agencies utilising them to obtain location data from tech companies.
Privacy Concerns of Geofence Warrants
While Geofence warrants allow law enforcement agencies to determine and identify potential suspects, these warrants have sparked controversy for their invasive characteristics. Civil rights activities and various technology companies have raised concerns over the impact of these warrants on the rights of data principals. It is noted that geofence warrants mark a rise in cases of state surveillance and police harassment. Not only is any data principal in the vicinity of the crime scene classified as a potential suspect, but companies are also compelled to submit identifying personal data on every device/phone in a marked geographic space.
From Surveillance to Safeguards
Geofence warrants have become a contentious tool for law enforcement worldwide, with concerns over privacy and civil liberties, especially in sensitive situations like protests and healthcare. Google is considering allowing users to store their location data on their devices, potentially ending the use of geofence warrants, which law enforcement agencies use to obtain location data from tech companies.
Google is changing its handling of Location History data, moving it on-device instead of on its servers. The default data retention period will be reduced. Google Maps' product director, Marlo McGriff, stated that the company will automatically encrypt backed-up data for cloud backups, preventing anyone from reading it. When these changes are implemented, Google will have no geodata fishing options for users. Google confirmed that it will no longer be able to respond to new geofence warrants once these changes are implemented, as it will not have access to the relevant data. The changes were designed to put an end to dragnet searches of location data.
Conclusion
Google's decision to change storage and access policies for users' location history in Google Maps marks a pivotal step in the ongoing narrative of law enforcement's misuse of geofence warrants. This move aims to safeguard individual privacy by significantly restricting the data retention period and limiting Google's ability to comply with geofence warrants. This change is welcomed by privacy advocates and legal professionals who express concerns over the intrusive nature of these warrants, which may potentially turn innocent individuals into suspects based on their proximity to a crime scene. As technology companies take steps to enhance user privacy, the evolving landscape calls for a balance between law enforcement needs and protecting individual rights in an era of increasing digital surveillance.
References:
- https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/internet/google-to-end-geofence-warrant-requests-for-users-location-data/106081499
- https://www.forbes.com/sites/cyrusfarivar/2023/12/14/google-just-killed-geofence-warrants-police-location-data/?sh=313da3c32c86
- https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/gadgets-news/explained-how-google-maps-is-preventing-authorities-from-accessing-users-location-history-data/articleshow/106086639.cms
