BEC Methods
- Spoof an email account or website. Slight variations on legitimate addresses (john.kelly@examplecompany.com vs. john.kelley@examplecompany.com) fool victims into thinking fake accounts are authentic. The spoofed emails can be made to look like they are coming from anyone. Scammers target employees with transactional authority (accounts payable, check signers, authorized individuals) or access to systems managing PII/W-2 data. Emails often display a sense of urgency culminating in a request for money transfers, data, or gift cards.
- Phishing emails. These messages look like they’re from a trusted sender to trick victims into revealing confidential information. That information lets criminals access company accounts, calendars, and data that gives them the details they need to carry out the BEC schemes. Emails attempt to entice users to click on a link that will take the user to a fraudulent website that appears legitimate or clicks on malicious attachments. This is an attempt by attackers to solicit personal information, such as account usernames and passwords, these fraudulent websites may also contain malicious code.
- Cloud-based email services. Cybercriminals are targeting organizations that use popular cloud-based email services to conduct Business Email Compromise (BEC) scams. The scams are initiated through specifically developed phish kits designed to mimic the cloud-based email services in order to compromise business email accounts and request or misdirect transfers of funds. Many phishing kits identify the email service associated with each set of compromised credentials, allowing the cybercriminal to target victims using cloud-based services. Upon compromising victim email accounts, cyber criminals analyze the content of compromised email accounts for evidence of financial transactions. Often, the actors configure the mailbox rules of a compromised account to delete key messages. They may also enable automatic forwarding to an outside email account. Using the information gathered from compromised accounts, cyber criminals impersonate email communications between compromised businesses and third parties, such as vendors or customers, to request pending or future payments are redirected to fraudulent bank accounts. Cybercriminals frequently access the address books of compromised accounts as a means to identify new targets to send phishing emails. As a result, a successful email account compromise at one business can pivot to multiple victims within an industry.
While most cloud-based email services have security features that can help prevent BEC, many of these features must be manually configured and enabled. Better protect yourself from BEC by taking advantage of the full spectrum of protections that are available. Depending upon the provider, cloud-based email services may provide security features such as advanced phishing protection and multi-factor authentication that is either not enabled by default or are only available at additional cost.
- Malware. Malicious software can infiltrate company networks and gain access to legitimate email threads about billing and invoices. That information is used to time requests or sends messages so accountants or financial officers don’t question payment requests. Malware also lets criminals gain undetected access to a victim’s data, including passwords and financial account information. This data is then used to avoid raising suspicions when a falsified wire transfer is submitted
- The bogus invoice scheme. A business in a long-standing relationship with a supplier is asked to wire funds for settling invoice payments to a fraudulent account. Emails sent to employees with transactional authority (accounts payable, check signers, authorized individuals). Threat actors may also send a link to what appears to be an invoice. The link may transmit sensitive information to the attackers or download malware. Threat actors target businesses with established relationships with a vendor or supplier. Leveraging fake invoices, threat actors request payment through social engineering to a financial account under their control.
- CEO fraud. The CEO’s email account is spoofed or hacked, and a request to urgently transfer funds is sent to the employee who is responsible for processing these requests, or, sometimes, directly to the bank. It relies on employees executing orders from the top management without question. It is usually carried out under specific circumstances, such as when the CEO is out of office.
- Compromised employee’s email account. An employee’s personal account - used both for personal and business communication - is hacked and exploited to send requests to a list of vendors identified from his or her business contact list asking for invoice payments to a fraudulent bank account. This scam is tricky to identify unless a vendor directly contacts the company about the payment.
- Attorney impersonation. The con artists pose as lawyers or representatives of a law firm. They contact either an employee or the CEO of the company via phone call or email and claim to possess confidential information. They then push the target to act quickly or secretly in transferring funds. The scam usually takes place at the end of business days or weeks, when people are more vulnerable and ready to act quickly.
- Data theft. An employee’s email account is hacked and used to send a request to another employee in human resources, asking not for money but for personally identifiable information (PII) or tax statements.
- Gift card. In a typical example, a victim receives a request from their management to purchase gift cards for a work-related function or as a present for a special personal occasion. The gift cards are then used to facilitate the purchase of goods and services which may or may not be legitimate. Some of these incidents are combined with additional requests for wire transfer payments. Sectors including technology, real estate, legal, medical, distribution and supply, and religious organizations have been targeted by this scam.
- Direct deposit: In this variant, the scammers pose as the victim and email a direct deposit change request to the finance or human resources department. This results in the employee's paycheck being redirected to an account controlled by the scammer.
- Vendor account change request: This variant is similar to the Direct Deposit Variant, although the request spoofs a vendor and requests the State, local, tribal, and territorial governments (SLTT) government modifies the vendor’s payment account. The next payment to the vendor is then sent to the updated account number, which belongs to the scammer.
- Vendor purchase order: In this scheme, the scammers obtain publicly available purchase order forms and change the contact details on the forms to include different telephone numbers and email addresses. Occasionally, scammers create copycat websites to authenticate the contact information included on fraudulent purchase orders. The scammers submit the purchase order to a vendor, have the goods shipped, and sell them for profit while the bill goes to the affected entity.
- Financial theft: In this variant, the scammers pose as an employee or senior official and request the department immediately wires money for a special purpose. Occasionally, the spoofed email will not directly reference a wire transfer, but rather specified that "transactions" need to be "set up and processed."
E-Mail Account Compromise (EAC) Schemes
Unlike BEC, EAC schemes target individuals instead of businesses. Individuals who conduct large transactions through financial institutions, lending entities, real estate companies, and law firms are the most likely targets of this type of scheme. EAC schemes often take the following forms:
- Lending/Brokerage Services: A criminal hacks into and uses the e-mail account of a financial services professional (such as a broker or accountant) to e-mail fraudulent instructions, allegedly on behalf of a client, to the client’s bank or brokerage, to wire-transfer client’s funds to an account controlled by the criminal.
- Real Estate Services: A criminal compromises the e-mail account of a realtor or of an individual purchasing or selling real estate, for the purposes of altering payment instructions and diverting funds of a real estate transaction (such as sale proceeds, loan disbursements, or fees). Alternately, criminals hack into and use a realtor’s e-mail address to contact an escrow company, instructing it to redirect commission proceeds to an account controlled by the criminal.
- Legal Services: A criminal compromises an attorney’s e-mail account to access client information and related transactions. The criminal then e-mails fraudulent transaction payment instructions to the attorney’s financial institution. Alternatively, the criminal may compromise a client’s e-mail account to request wire transfers from trust and escrow accounts the client’s attorney manages.
BEC and Cryptocurrency
A cryptocurrency is a form of virtual asset that uses cryptography (the use of coded messages to secure communications) to secure financial transactions and is popular among illicit actors due to the high degree of anonymity associated with it and the speed at which transactions occur.
Currently, there are two known iterations of the BEC scam where cryptocurrency was utilized by criminals. In both situations, the victim is unaware that the funds are being sent to be converted to cryptocurrency.
- A direct transfer to a cryptocurrency exchange (CE) - This scenario is where the fraudster alters wire transfer info and redirects payment to a cryptocurrency exchange (CE).
- "Second Hop" transfer to a cryptocurrency exchange (CE) - Uses victims of other cyber-enabled scams such as Extortion, Tech Support, and Romance Scams. Often, these individuals provided copies of identifying documents such as driver's licenses, passports, etc., that are used to open cryptocurrency wallets in their names. This scenario is where the fraudster opens a cryptocurrency wallet in another fraud victim's name. The fraudster then alters a wire transfer in a BEC scam and sends the funds to the other victim's falsified cryptocurrency account and cashes out. Making it hard to trace the movement of funds.
E-Mail Account Compromise (EAC) Schemes
BEC and EAC schemes are similar and, therefore, may exhibit similar suspicious behavior, which can be identified by one or more of the following red flags:
- A customer’s seemingly legitimate e-mailed transaction instructions contain different language, timing, and amounts than previously verified and authentic transaction instructions.
- Transaction instructions originate from an e-mail account closely resembling a known customer’s e-mail account; however, the e-mail address has been slightly altered by adding, changing, or deleting one or more characters.
- Multiple sets of wire instructions or change of wiring instructions provided. WIRE INSTRUCTIONS SHOULD NEVER CHANGE!
- Poor grammar or odd use of terms / phrases used in the body of the email.
- Sense of urgency – funds must be wired immediately.
- Seller contacts Title Company via email, with payment instruction changes as opposed to the lender.
- Recipient bank account doesn’t make sense.
- Payee not a party to the transaction
- Payee is law firm not involved in the transaction
- Payee in an unrelated location (another state)
- Beneficiary Bank is not a local bank
- Email sent outside of normal business hours or using 24-hour clock (22:00 hrs. instead of 10:00pm).
- Unexpected email with link to a document – likely a link with malware.
- Sender’s email is similar to the legitimate email address. The changed email address could be often subtle (hover cursor over email address).
- Legitimate e-mail address - john-doe@abc.com
- Fraudulent e-mail addresses - john_doe@abc.com, john-doe@bcd.com
Example of a Typical Business Email Compromise Case:
Customer initiates a $250,000 wire to Beneficiary Bank to a Lender. Proceeds are for a Mortgage Pay-off and are to be received by the Mortgage Lender. After a period of time, the Customer is contacted by the Lender, informing them of non-receipt of the loan payoff. Customer then contacts the Bank 30 days later, indicating that they believed they were a victim of a fraud and request a wire recall. The Beneficiary Bank could not honor the wire recall, because there were no longer funds in the Beneficiary Bank Account. The Customer incurs the loss of $250,000.
How the Scam was Executed: Prior to the closing, the Customer receives a Modified Closing Document (CD) via email from whom he thinks, is the Buyer/Borrower. The person(s) impersonating the Borrower indicates that the Lender was going to be sending via FAX a modified CD “as a result of a payoff error” (Red Flag). The Fraudster also claims the payoff amount would remain the same. The impersonator sends via email, the modified CD to the Customer. The wire is processed with the new instructions and sent to a bank account controlled by the Fraudster(s), per the fraudulent wire instructions. As mentioned, after 30 days, the Lender contacts the Customer to verify the status of the payoff. At this point it is determined that the updated instructions were not sent from the Borrower’s legitimate email, as it was spoofed by the Fraudster.
Account Take Overs can result from the compromise of account credentials and email accounts.
Case Scenario: Fraudster has obtained the account number and online banking log in credentials. They have also compromised the customer’s email account. They change the password on the account, with the verification code being sent to the email address on file. The fraudster has taken over the email account and can intercept bank authorization codes. Once the fraudster has access to the account, they can originate a payment (i.e., wire, ACH) and have the passcode sent to the email address on file. In some cases where dual control of wires is in place, the fraudster may steal the credentials of both employees.
How could this happen?
- Shared credentials
- Microsoft Outlook dual authentication disabled
- Malware
- Phishing
- Dual Control is not really dual control (one person)
- Lax security
There has been a recent move to go back to utilizing FAXING as a method of sharing and obtaining banking and wire information between Settlement Agents and Buyers/Sellers. Although using FAX technology may negate systemic hacking, remember that if email exchange was used in any part of the communication chain, using faxes to share banking information is open to cyber fraud.
Case Study
- Prior to closing, Seller of property communicated via email with the Title/Settlement Company on obtaining their FAX number to provide Loan Payoff Information for their loan.
- 2 weeks prior to the closing the Seller faxed the Pay Off Information they received from their Lender directly to the Settlement Company. Banking Information included the account title: Payoff Clearing Account
- 2 Days prior to the Closing the Settlement Company received an updated FAX “From the Seller” which had a change to the pay Off Account Number and Information at the same Lender Bank: Payoff Toneberg Enterprise
- Settlement Company used the banking information from the second FAX and wired $390,000.00 to the Lender Bank to “Pay Off” the Seller’s Mortgage.
- Cyber Fraudsters compromised the Seller’s email account and followed the communication between the Settlement Company and The Seller. They gained access to the original payoff letter the Seller received from the Lender and created an exact duplicate of the original FAX. The second FAX made no reference of being an update.