Will Clinton and Jessica Greentree discovered firsthand how devastating these scams can be. As they progressed to the final stages of purchasing their first home, they received a convincing email purportedly from their solicitor’s office, requesting the deposit payment. Unfortunately, it turned out to be a skilfully crafted counterfeit that redirected their $48,000 to a fraudulent account.
“It felt shattering,” Jessica recounted emotionally to The Project, referring to their efforts in saving for a house deposit. “Everything we've scrimped and saved for over a year and a half was gone in an instant.” Similarly, Will described the ordeal as “gut-wrenching,” adding it was “probably the worst day of our life.”
Initial interactions with their real solicitor gave no inkling of the subsequent trap. “We had been in touch the previous day,” Will said. Therefore, when the email arrived, it appeared credible with all the anticipated details and formal letterhead. Assured by these signs, they proceeded, only to later realise they had fallen prey to scam artists.
Not only did their bank, Macquarie, provide minimal restitution with a gesture of just $500, they also maintained that the couple authorised the transaction, compounding the couple's frustration. “We didn’t knowingly send money to scammers,” Will lamented. “It’s outrageous to equate an email scam with authorising a transfer.”
This incident underscores how attractive residential property transactions have become to cybercriminals. As highlighted by Professor Richard Buckland from the University of New South Wales on The Project, this sector offers rich rewards if scammers execute their plots without a hitch. “There’s a high incentive,” he said, pointing out that scams mimicking platforms like Property Exchange Australia (PEXA) are particularly prevalent.
Many of these scams operate by first infiltrating real estate agents or conveyancers, obtaining critical data that allows them to convincingly impersonate official communications. “It's a multi-layered deception,” added Professor Buckland. He urged, “banks and property platforms must more robustly safeguard against these schemes.”
PEXA itself acknowledged the increased frequency of cyber-attacks on housing transactions back in 2022, urging stricter precautions. David Willett, PEXA’s chief information security officer, recommended against using email for conveying bank details. He underscored a safer practice: confirming such vital information verbally or in-person.
Detailed instances reinforce this warning. A Western Australian woman was conned out of $732,000, while a Sydney couple lost $1 million to similar scams. The market’s susceptibility is partly due to the high-value transactions it facilitates, making it an attractive domain for cybercriminals.
It's clear that industry practices must evolve to shield consumers against these increasingly sophisticated fraud tactics. Scamwatch's reports underline the gravity, citing $159.8 million lost to scams in 2024, emphasizing investment frauds. Echoing this, Professor Buckland noted that while advancements grow, so does the complexity of these cyberattacks.
As housing remains one of Australia’s top asset classes, vigilance and improved security measures are critical to stem this rising tide of property-related cybercrime. Sectors involved in these transactions need to prioritise cyber protection to ensure buyers like Will and Jessica don’t endure such loss and distress.
