{"id":10790,"date":"2026-11-03T15:13:52","date_gmt":"2026-11-03T07:13:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.fmos.org.my\/?p=10790"},"modified":"2026-11-03T15:18:14","modified_gmt":"2026-11-03T07:18:14","slug":"tap-pay-what-could-go-wrong-e-wallet-cases-at-fmos","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.fmos.org.my\/bm\/tap-pay-what-could-go-wrong-e-wallet-cases-at-fmos\/","title":{"rendered":"Tap, pay, what could go wrong? E-wallet cases at FMOS"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Going cashless through e-wallets has become a seamless part of our daily lives.<\/p>

In Malaysia, the use of digital payments has grown rapidly, with e-wallets making it easier to pay for everyday purchases, shop online, transfer money and manage payments from our phones.<\/p>

When Things Go Wrong with an E-Wallet<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>

A few taps are often all it takes.\u00a0<\/p>

But the same convenience that makes e-wallets useful can also make them a target for scams. Fraudsters may steal account details, take control of an account or device, or trick consumers into making payments themselves.<\/p>

FMOS receives disputes related to scams and other e-wallet issues. These include unauthorised transactions, duplicate charges, transfers that never reach the intended recipient, unsuccessful payments and delays in obtaining refunds. FMOS examines the circumstances of each dispute and the available evidence to establish what happened.<\/p>

E-Wallet Scam Patterns<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>

FMOS has observed several recurring patterns across disputes involving e-wallet scams. While each case presents its own circumstances, a number of common scam scenarios have emerged:<\/p>

Phishing, stolen login details and unauthorised device access<\/strong><\/p>

A scammer may impersonate a bank, government agency, merchant, or other trusted organisation or direct the consumer to a fake website or app. The consumer may be tricked into sharing their login details, PIN or One-Time Password (OTP), or downloading an app that contains malicious software.<\/p>

In some cases, the scammer may entice the consumer to stay on a video call, allowing them to use the consumer\u2019s facial biometrics to approve a transaction.\u00a0<\/p>

With this access, the scammer may gain entry into the consumer\u2019s e-wallet account, register or link another device, change security settings, or make transactions without the consumer\u2019s knowledge.<\/p>

When Consumers are manipulated into authorising payments<\/strong><\/p>

Scammers may deceive consumers into authorising payments or transferring funds by presenting fraudulent investment opportunities, job offers, rental listings, online shopping deals or other seemingly legitimate offers.<\/p>

Rapid Transactions, Linked Cards and Automatic Reloads<\/strong><\/p>

Once scammers gain unauthorised access to an e-wallet, whether through compromised login credentials or a newly registered device, they may make multiple transfers or payments within minutes.\u00a0<\/p>

If the e-wallet is linked to a debit or credit card and automatic top-up is enabled, additional funds may be loaded into the e-wallet.\u00a0<\/p>

If the credentials of an e-wallet have been compromised, the automatic top-ups can allow scammers to quickly transfer or spend the money before the consumer becomes aware of the unauthorised activity. This may result in substantial losses within a short period.\u00a0<\/p>

What Does FMOS Look At?<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>

FMOS looks at transactions from start to finish, including how the transactions were made, whether the consumer used a device linked to his\/her account, and what login details and security checks were required. This may include device registration history, authentication records, login activity, and the sequence of events leading up to the disputed transaction.<\/p>

The e-money issuer\u2019s records of account activity, devices and logins may also help establish whether someone else accessed the account, stole the consumer\u2019s details or linked an unauthorised device.<\/p>

For scam-related disputes, FMOS examines the timing, value, frequency and sequence of the transactions, as well as the overall pattern of activity. This may include multiple reloads, transfers, or payments made within a short period; changes to the device or account settings; and transactions that deviate from the consumer\u2019s usual activity or transaction patterns.<\/p>

FMOS may also consider the nature of the scammer\u2019s representation, the circumstances in which the consumer was persuaded to authorise the transaction, and whether the transaction pattern was consistent with the consumer\u2019s usual activity. It may further assess whether the activity could reasonably have triggered fraud-monitoring controls, and whether the e-money issuer\u2019s alerts, transaction limits, and steps to prevent further losses were reasonable in the circumstances.\u00a0<\/p>

For other disputes, such as duplicate payments, transfers that never arrived, or service failures, FMOS may review transaction records, merchant or recipient details, receipts, account statements, and other documents to determine what happened to the money.<\/p>

The manner in which the e-money issuer handled the complaint also forms part of FMOS\u2019s assessment.\u00a0 Relevant considerations may include the timeliness and adequacy of the investigation, the clarity and evidential basis of the response, the steps taken to explore available recovery options, including chargeback where applicable, and whether such steps were taken within the relevant time limits.\u00a0<\/p>

Ultimately, each dispute is assessed on its own facts and the evidence provided by both parties. FMOS considers what each party did or failed to do, whether the records and supporting documents can be relied upon, and whether either party\u2019s actions contributed to the financial loss.\u00a0<\/p>

The outcome is based on what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.<\/p>

Real E-Wallet Cases: What Happened and What FMOS Decided<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>

Actual disputes handled by FMOS illustrate how liability is determined based on device security, authentication, and service delivery.<\/p>

Case Study 1: When the Bound Device Matters<\/strong><\/p>

Sharifah disputed nine unauthorised e-wallet transactions totalling RM606 for Razer Gold game credits. After her e-money issuer rejected her claim, she contacted FMOS.<\/p>

The records showed that the transactions were made using her registered device, which was linked to her e-wallet account since 14 January 2021. There was no record of any new device being used to access the e-wallet before the disputed transactions. The e-wallet was also topped up using Sharifah\u2019s linked credit card.\u00a0<\/p>

While an OTP was required when the credit card was initially linked to the e-wallet, subsequent reloads made using the saved \u201cfavourite card\u201d did not require an additional OTP under the merchant\u2019s standard process.<\/p>

Having considered the available evidence, FMOS upheld the e-money issuer\u2019s decision.\u00a0<\/p>

Consumer takeaway:<\/strong> Keep your phone secure, protect your account details, and regularly check your linked cards and automatic reload settings.<\/p>

Case Study 2: The Room Rental Scam<\/strong><\/p>

Shan was looking for a room to rent when he came across a rental scam. Believing he had secured the accommodation, he made two e-wallet transfers totalling RM500 to two different individuals.<\/p>

The disputed transfers were authorised using Shan\u2019s registered mobile number, a bound device, and a six-digit PIN. FMOS noted that the e-wallet had been reloaded with amounts matching the disputed transfers shortly before the payments were made.<\/p>

In this case, the evidence indicated that Shan had personally initiated and authenticated the transactions after being deceived by the scammer. FMOS therefore found in favour of the e-money issuer.<\/p>

The Ombudsman disallowed the claim and emphasised the consumer\u2019s responsibility to exercise vigilance before making third-party transfers.<\/p>

A similar principle applies to an e-wallet scam involving a fraudulent lucky-draw promotion.\u00a0 The consumer was deceived by an online promotion and voluntarily transferred RM1,600.\u00a0 The transactions were carried out using the consumer\u2019s existing registered device and authenticated with the user\u2019s six-digit PIN.\u00a0<\/p>

Consumer takeaway:<\/strong> A scam can still involve a transaction that the consumer personally authorised. Before making a transfer, pause and independently verify the person, merchant or opportunity involved rather than relying solely on information provided by the other party.\u00a0<\/p>

Case Study 3: Duplicate E-Wallet Payment for the Same Flight<\/strong><\/p>

Chen used his multi-currency debit card to book a flight with an airline. When he did not receive a confirmation code, he tried again with the same flight details. He received confirmation only after his third attempt and promptly asked for the earlier transactions to be cancelled.\u00a0<\/p>

By the time the e-money issuer tried to initiate a chargeback, more than 120 days had passed, and the Visa chargeback timeframe had expired. Although the transactions had been authorised using 3D Secure, the Ombudsman found evidence that the earlier flight bookings had not been successfully completed.\u00a0<\/p>

As Chen had raised the issue promptly, the e-money issuer’s failure to advise him of the chargeback process and to act within the required timeframe had unfairly deprived him of the opportunity to recover the funds. The Ombudsman found in Chen’s favour and required the e-money issuer to refund RM14,000.<\/p>

Consumer Takeaway:<\/strong> If a payment goes wrong, promptly report it to your financial service provider and ask about available options and deadlines for disputing the transaction.<\/p>

How to Keep Your E-Wallet Safe<\/strong><\/span><\/h4>