Reuters reports:
More than a month after hackers breached Bangladesh Bank's systems and attempted to steal nearly $1 billion from its account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, cyber security experts are trying to find out how the hackers got in.
FireEye Inc's Mandiant forensics division is helping investigate the cyber heist, which netted hackers more than $80 million before it was uncovered.
Federal Reserve... I guess it is where the money is.
Additional Coverage also on Reuters.
Related Stories
A computer security expert who had recently criticised the Bangladesh Bank for "apathy" toward security after a computerised theft from its account at the Federal Reserve Bank has disappeared. A friend said that Tanvir Hassan Zoha was travelling home in a rickshaw when Zoha and the friend were both seized by a group of men, then the friend was released. Minister of Home Affairs Asaduzzaman Khan Kamal told the press:
Law enforcers might have arrested Zoha for the sake of investigation. But I am not sure about it.
- The Star Online
- Reuters
- Softpedia
- Prothom Alo
- The Daily Star
- The Financial Express
- bdnews24.com
- Dhaka Tribune (non-Cloudflare copy)
- Dhaka Tribune (non-Cloudflare copy)
Update: Prior to his disappearance, Zoha had alleged (non-Cloudflare copy) that at least one bank official had been complicit in the theft.
See original submission #2 for more links.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Sunday March 13 2016, @03:58AM
So what I don't understand is how all these fraudulent electronic funds transfers materialize into actual theft. Bitcoin is un-reversible, I get that, but why is a bank transfer un-correctable? It is a string of bits sent from one bank -- which should be a known entity -- to another -- equally well established, right? And anyway, the recipient can't spend bits, can they? It has to become cash or equivalent at some point. Until then, why can't someone just click "Undo" when it is discovered to be fraud?
How does the criminal open an account at his bank? If I want to give money to my bank I have to fill out a 3 page credit application, show a driver's license (but I wasn't planning to drive these checks) if not even a passport, leave some blood and a retinal scan, and meanwhile someone can just anonymously walk away with millions?
And how do you carry $80 million in cash home from the bank? Lord knows the Feds are itching for an excuse to arrest me if I move a mere $10,000. They are obsessed with tracking all that "because criminals" but when an actual criminal does it "oh well".
Huh?
And if scammer A tricks bank B into sending money someplace, how does that get repackaged as the victim is me? *I* didn't get fooled, the bank did. *My* identity wasn't stolen; I still have it. Nobody took my money from the bank because there aren't bits sitting in the bank's computer all painted red to identify them as Justin Case's special bits. Someone fooled the bank into sending the bank's money to Anarchistan. The bank is the victim, not me.
The whole package doesn't make sense to me. It is almost as if the banks are in on the scam, and want us to believe they can't be trusted to keep track of money.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13 2016, @04:02AM
They open a whole bunch of phony accounts and have the funds transferred in smallish amounts (not $10 million at a time) to them. Then the funds from the phony accounts get transferrred to other phony accounts in different countries, and finally the criminals walk in an withdraw the money in Eastern Europe or wherever.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13 2016, @04:30AM
The linked Reuter's article is sort of OK, but still light on details.
I read about this first in my local newspaper, which had a completely confused article from Washington Post (syndicated). My SO and I read it separately during breakfast, then we both read it again and still couldn't figure out what happened...except that it involved banks and lots of money.
Part of the problem with coverage of the story is that there is still a lot of investigation to be done?
Also, from personal experience of fraud on one of my accounts (10 years ago), the banks keep these things as quiet as they can, so the full story may never really come out. In my case, someone tried to make an ACH (US banking term, Automated Clearing House) withdrawal of USD $10K (ten thousand) from an account that only had about $5000 in it. The money was going to an online brokerage account, which I'm guessing was opened for this purpose, like a throw-away email address? I was on good terms with my local bank branch and they called me as soon as the ACH appeared to create an overdraft. I filled out some paperwork and never heard any more about it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Sunday March 13 2016, @04:15AM
"It is almost as if the banks are in on the scam"
There's a reason that, even dating back to the Founding Fathers (in the US), we have been warned of banking cartels and the policians they fund. For a more recent and visible example, look at HSBC who was knowingly laundering cash for the Mexican drug cartels. They were not held accountable. They do not care if we believe they can be trusted or not, they only care if they can continue to manipulate politicians.
(Score: 2) by bziman on Sunday March 13 2016, @09:11AM
I have an idea... how about we let people conduct business and leave them the hell alone. You shouldn't have to hide money from the government. If someone has committed some actual crime, prosecute them for that. Controlling and monitoring the banking industry (in this particular way) is just a way to make slaves of everyone, but does nothing to improve our safety and security.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by linkdude64 on Sunday March 13 2016, @11:27AM
"how about we let people conduct business and leave them the hell alone."
Jesus Christ. Are you even this adamant against taxation?
"Controlling and monitoring the banking industry is just a way to make slaves of everyone"
This was really stunning to read.
If you think that the international banking system is anything but wildly out of control with unchecked power, you have your head in the sand. I'm having trouble knowing where to even start with breaking down your idea that the bankers are out to help the citizens of the world.
To think that if we simply do no evil, and pay no mind to the others that do, that will "make us free," is one of the most utterly naive and utopic things I've ever seen somebody earnestly type. Do the words "Federal Reserve" mean anything to you? Are you aware of the IMF and what they do? How they control our military? How they destroy other countries through force or trade?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 13 2016, @12:24PM
If you think that the international banking system is anything but wildly out of control with unchecked power, you have your head in the sand. I'm having trouble knowing where to even start with breaking down your idea that the bankers are out to help the citizens of the world.
How about you read the post you are replying to? He doesn't state that bankers are out to help. That's your idea. And with this "unchecked power", what do bankers do? Money laundering and the occasional economic crisis. It might be unchecked, but it's not that powerful. Meanwhile the US government that knows exactly what your financial transactions are, happens to be spying on everyone's cell phone and internet communications? Whose unchecked power should we be worrying about again? I'm all for playing off the power of bankers versus government spies, but your attitude is suicidal.
(Score: 4, Informative) by linkdude64 on Sunday March 13 2016, @01:18PM
"He doesn't state that bankers are out to help. "
You're right, I got carried away, I'm just blown away by the sheer audacity of his argument which is either "Stand by while others do evil" or, "Money cannot be 'dirty' regardless of method used to gain it."
"Money laundering and the occasional economic crisis."
...I'm guessing you haven't been to foia.gov recently.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/declassified-emails-reveal-natos-true-motive-topple-gaddafi-stop-creation-gold-backed-african-currency/ [thefreethoughtproject.com]
http://levantreport.com/2016/01/04/new-hillary-emails-reveal-propaganda-executions-coveting-libyan-oil-and-gold/ [levantreport.com]
And the source, straight from the horses mouth:
https://www.foia.state.gov/Search/Results.aspx?collection=Clinton_Email_December_Release [state.gov]
The banks are what pushed NATO to overthrow the Libyan government. Why? Because they were going to create their own currency and the European banks would lose financial control of the region.
Hillary Clinton oversaw this, and she is in league with the banksters as well. If you need proof I can give it to you, but you really shouldn't need any more, just look at how much the establishment loves her.
I'm guessing you hadn't the slightest idea about Libya, and I could easily provide more examples of banks directly causing tens of thousands of deaths, millions of displaced refugees, and millions of dollars in damages, but we'll see if objective proof directly from the United States government is sufficient to slightly alter your worldview. That is, before addressing your comment about my attitude of holding banks accountable being "suicidal" and all.
I sure hope you weren't a Clinton supporter, because now you should be able to see the blood on her hands nice and bright.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Sunday March 13 2016, @01:54PM
This means that before any entity tries to break free they have to build a military force that can deter any bankster driven military?
Makes one to re-evaluate the nuclear club and Russia / China. It's not like anyone will invade those countries anytime soon.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday March 13 2016, @02:27PM
You're right, I got carried away, I'm just blown away by the sheer audacity of his argument which is either "Stand by while others do evil" or, "Money cannot be 'dirty' regardless of method used to gain it."
He didn't say that either. Come on, read the post. Now, let's consider your accusations about Libya. If your links are even remotely close to accurate, then you are stating that it is better to have these governments which are working hand in hand with the worst and most powerful of the international banks in vile actions in Libya police citizens' financial transactions. What do you think will happen? Will the banks which you allow already have "unchecked power" suddenly be cowed by policies that haven't worked yet for decades? Why should those powerful banks be the only ones allowed to do evil or launder dirty money?
To the contrary, I think doing away with these regulations will undermine, though not destroy, the power of banks by making that power more diffuse. The crimelord that wants to funnel his drug and extortion money into legit business now can set up his own bank. The tax evader can now use their local credit union rather than HSBC. And a few less countries end up invaded because it helps someone's bottom line. Sure, the evil still happens, but it was going anyway. And maybe we can think about what we choose to make evil rather than merely do terrible things because that evil is in the world.
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday March 13 2016, @02:08PM
they can't be trusted to keep track of money.
Never trust your bank. I'll share an anecdote that happened to us last year. My wife has accounts in two countries with one big, international bank. Call them country A and country B. We used to live in country A but currently we have been living in country B for the past two years or so. The bank accounts are separate accounts, with separate credit cards. Country A credit cards are linked to the Country A account, and the same for country B. Furthermore we tend not to use the Country A credit cards at all since we're living in Country B - we only use them a week or so out of the year when we go back to visit family in Country A.
Long story short, one day we get a notification of some weird $1 charge on our Country B credit card. We find out right away because the bank provides a notification by email feature for any transaction. My wife asks me if I used the credit cards to buy something for $1 and I say no. So she calls the bank to tell them there's a problem because we never made that charge. The bank says fine, they recommend cancelling that card and they would issue a new card free of charge. It would take about a week to get the new card to us. OK. The next day, the fraudulent charges start piling in - $80, $100, $500, etc. All of them say "Declined" on the notification - so we're real glad we cancelled the credit card and asked for a new one. After a while the attempts at using our old invalid card stop. We get the new one.
A few days later the same thing happens again, a $2 charge - but this time on our old credit card for Country A. Wait - now this doesn't make sense. If someone had swiped our Country B credit card, etc, as the bank suggested that's fair enough. But there is no way they could have the information on BOTH credit cards because we never use the other one. This had to be someone AT THE BANK that had access to the database and knew the information on my wife's credit card across several countries. It's the only way it makes any sense. Needless to say, we cancelled that card immediately too.
Anyway just to prove that a bank is your best friend, later on the credit card statement for country B, we see the $500 that was declined among the other legitimate charges on our bill. We call up to dispute it - the card was cancelled before the charge came in and we even got an email from the bank stating that the charge had been declined, and yet it still showed up on our statement. First, the bank wanted to charge us a fee for the great service of removing a charge that shouldn't be there in the first place, along with a "threat" that if the charge was found to be valid after all, we would have to pay a fine. And second, they had no idea how long it would take to remove the charge, as it would have to be reviewed by a committee. The fact that we always paid a yearly premium for "fraud protection" also made no difference. Fortunately we're not so poor that a $500 hit for a month or so would kill us, so we waited it out and the charge was removed (they had to, of course, we had proof). But imagine someone poorer...they could have been really screwed by this.
So moral of the story: ALWAYS check your statements, the bank will ALWAYS try to screw you, and bank security is a MYTH. They can't even keep their own servers and databases safe.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CortoMaltese on Sunday March 13 2016, @04:08AM
Yes we are calling from the Federal Reserve Bank in New York, we have detected a possible intrusion attempt, to correct it we will need your card number, expiration date, CC and the Prime Minister mother's maiden name.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 13 2016, @11:43AM
On no, no money has been stolen. And yes, you'll be picking up the tab.