kathimerini.gr
Unsolicited Packages Scam in Greece: Bulgarian Company Exploits Cash-on-Delivery
A Bulgarian company is sending unsolicited packages containing lingerie, other goods, and even nothing to Greek customers via ACS courier, charging cash-on-delivery fees (40-79 euros), exploiting weak online security and human curiosity, possibly as a variant of 'brushing'.
- What is the nature of the scam involving unsolicited packages from a Bulgarian company and cash-on-delivery payments in Greece?
- A Bulgarian company is sending unsolicited packages containing items that were not ordered, to various customers in Greece. Customers are charged cash-on-delivery fees ranging from 40 to 79 euros. One victim received lingerie, another received a package for free.
- How are the perpetrators obtaining personal information to execute this scam, and what measures are they using to avoid detection?
- This scam leverages compromised user accounts or publicly available data to send packages to unsuspecting recipients. The perpetrators use stolen personal information to create fake online accounts, placing orders that the legitimate account holders never initiated. The cash-on-delivery method ensures payment even if the bank accounts used are later closed.
- What are the broader implications of this scam, considering its relation to "brushing" and the challenges in pursuing legal action against the perpetrators?
- This scam highlights the vulnerability of individuals using the same passwords across multiple online accounts. The low value of the individual losses likely discourages victims from pursuing legal action. This method may be a variant of "brushing," a tactic used to generate false positive reviews, though this particular case focuses on financial gain.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the issue as a consumer protection problem caused by sophisticated online scams. The focus is on the victims and their experiences of receiving unexpected packages and losing money. This framing elicits sympathy and highlights the vulnerability of consumers. While the article explains the perpetrators' methods, it doesn't frame them as solely responsible; it acknowledges that user behavior (using the same passwords across accounts) contributes to the problem.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and objective. Terms like "scammers" and "fraud" are used appropriately to describe criminal activity. However, the use of phrases like "orphans packages" is slightly dramatic, adding a slight emotional tone.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the experiences of victims and the methods used by the perpetrators, but it lacks information on the scale of the problem, the authorities' response, or preventative measures individuals can take beyond being cautious about unknown packages. There is no mention of any legal actions taken against the perpetrators or any support available for victims. While acknowledging space constraints is valid, omitting this context limits the reader's ability to fully understand the issue and how to protect themselves.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a scam targeting consumers, resulting in financial losses. This disproportionately affects vulnerable populations who may be less equipped to handle such fraud, exacerbating existing economic inequalities.