HONG KONG: There was more disappointing news yesterday for Marcus Wong, the Hong Kong businessman who lost HK$2.5 million in a bogus bank card ripoff.

A copy of an Exit/Entry Permit for Travel to and from Hong Kong and Macao that Wong hoped would identify the crook may have been a fake. The name and number on the permit do not match. The permit was used during a transaction in Macao during which the money was stolen from Wong's bank in Shenzhen. Chances of resolving the case now appear even more remote.

Wong said the police in Shenzhen told him to be patient, since they need Interpol to help them in working with Macao police. Wong was advised to report the case to Macao police himself, to save time and increase chances of cracking the case.

"I am going to Macao tomorrow, or the day after, to report the case to Macao police in person," Wong said. "I am not messing up anything the police or bank is asking me to do, so that they do not find any faults with me later," said Wong.

Wong is also wrapped up in handing business affairs amid a financial crisis precipitated by the theft. He said he has started taking account of his cash flow before meeting business contacts these days. He says that rarely happened in the past. Some of his suppliers are demanding cash only on his next order. In the meantime he still has outstanding accounts receivable, Wong said.

Wong said he plans to sue the Bank of Communications (BoCom) to try to get his money back, now that the only apparently solid evidence has proven worthless. He said friends in Shenzhen already have introduced him to some lawyers.

BoCom refused to comment on the case, given the police have taken over the case and begun their investigation. The bank reiterated that all the procedures involved were in strict adherence to relevant regulations. A bank spokesman said BoCom would actively cooperate with the public security bureau in the investigation and the evidence gathering.

Unionpay, the company which received the money for transfer, said they provided only back-office services between banks and have no personal information on cardholders.

Police asked Wong if he had ever divulged his bank card PIN to others, since the purchase always required a 6-digit-password. Wong acknowledged he used the card to withdraw cash or pay for goods in Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Ningbo occasionally. It has never gone out of his sight except for a few instances the cashier took it away to swipe it on a POS machine.

An employee surnamed Wang of another nationally owned bank said it was unlikely the bank could have leaked information to a card counterfeiter, but more likely that it was done unwittingly by Wong himself. She speculated Wong may have used a simple, easy-to-crack combination of numbers, allowed someone to see him key his PIN or even by recording the PIN number as Wong made a transaction.

However, a lawyer surnamed Tao in Shanghai questioned the objective of the text message notification for purchase. He said if a consumer's immediate confirmation of an unauthorized consumption could not spark further measures for the bank to suspend a transaction, he did not see that the notification was of any use to protect the interests of the bank card holders.

"I believe the bank might be doing everything right in accordance with the regulations, but I don't think those regulations are perfect enough to protect the interests of the bank account owners who are the disadvantaged group. In this case, if every party involved was doing everything right, Wong will be in a very unfavorable position even if he also did nothing wrong," said Tao.

A Hong Kong businessman, Wong was informed by a text message in the dawn of October 14 that his mainland bank card had consumed HK$2.5 million in a jewelry shop in Macao. Wong hasn't been to Macao for almost a year, and the bank card was still with him even when the expenditure was taking place.

(HK Edition 11/03/2009 page1)