A businesswoman was shocked when she was surprised to withdraw huge amounts of money, more than five million dirhams, from her accounts in a bank, and discovered that a "unknown" woman plagiarized her character, and with a gang of professionals managed to penetrate her accounts, after seizing her confidential data in a suspicious way.

In detail, the Criminal Court in Dubai has commenced the trial of a gang consisting of six accused, and others unknown, who have fraudulently seized about five million dirhams from client accounts in a bank in the country, after extracting a lost allowance from the phone number chip registered in the name of the victim with one of the provider companies For telephone services.

A witness of proof from the bank said that the victim is a customer, and she has three accounts, pointing out that a phone call was received from the anti-fraud department in another bank, stating that there are transfers received from the victims ’accounts to some accounts with the last bank, and they asked him to verify those The remittances, then called the victim without success, then called the land number of her company or her father’s company, so the response came that they are outside the state, so they asked the company’s employees to communicate with her and inform her about these transfers, so she was shocked by the news, and confirmed that she did not make any transfers, and she reviewed the bank To know how these transactions took place.

The witness added that the bank conducted immediate investigations, and it was found that anonymous the person of the company providing the telephone calls, and was able to extract a replacement for the phone number of the business woman associated with the bank, using false documents, then a woman took the identity of the victim, contacted the bank, and was able to answer the identification questions that The client, which is the mother’s name, date of birth, the number of credit cards, and the number of accounts, then requested to change the e-mail of the amount, and to issue a withdrawal card, her requests were approved, she obtained the card, and she was able with the rest of the accused to withdraw huge sums of money from Sense The victim.

The witness indicated that he does not know how the anonymous woman reached the confidential data that belonged to the victim, and does not assert that a bank employee colluded with her and provided her with answers to the introductory questions, pointing to embezzlement of money in two ways, the first through financial transfers to external accounts, and the second through direct withdrawal from Through the debit card, but that woman did not withdraw the money herself, but rather other people. The witness revealed that that woman received the withdrawal card through Aramex, and provided the company representative with a passport photo in the name of the amount, but in a different form, and later it became clear that the passport photo was forged, explaining that the anonymous accused used the phone number of the victim registered with the bank to contact . He pointed out that the reported accounts were suspended, as they had not entered the country for more than 120 days, pointing out that the internal investigation is still in progress to verify whether one of the employees was complicit in them in entering the client’s account and leaking her data. In addition, a sales employee at the telecommunications company that issued a lost replacement of the victim's phone card said that she only knows one defendant from the accused, as he came to the sales outlet, applied for a lost replacement, edited an electronic request to him, and took over the signature on the tablet , Given that the phone is registered in the name of a company, after he provided the facility card original, and a photocopy of the commercial license, proving that he is the manager of the company, and other documents.

She indicated that she photocopied those documents, and conducted the transaction in the usual ways, and in the absence of a signature stored by the owner of the phone with the company, she was unable to compare the signature of the accused, and was satisfied with matching his electronic signature with the signature on his identity card, and she issued him a card in exchange for a lost number, and delivered it to The spot.