338. Dealing with a cyber fraud fallout | amending meeting motions | levy success |
Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: RSS
Reena and I discuss:
– whose responsibility it is to reimburse stolen funds in the event of a cyber fraud incident,
– when the minutes may not be an accurate reflection of what occurred at a meeting,
– the communities taking their ‘corporate responsibilities’ seriously,
– a strata manager’s perspective on why strata communities must stay ‘match-fit’, and how they can do so.
I also ask the question: did Reena FINALLY get a puppy? Tune in to find out.
Links mentioned:
- Get the transcript here!
- Podcast Episode 333. How detailed should the minutes of strata meetings be?
- Podcast Episode 331. “If you can’t repair it, don’t own it.” – Michael Teys
- Member call no. 65: “Why do we have to manage the strata manager?”
- Solving under-investment in Strata: Governance and Meetings – Article by Russell Young
Hi Amanda and Reena,
Was just listening to the podcast. Re Cyber Crime. My thoughts. If I encounter a payment for a product or service which is not mine I just call my bank and they refund it and follow up with the dodgy entity. They have the insurance. Reena have you tried that? I imagine the bank the funds have come out of is either your trust account or the account of the OC. What do you think?
Hi Bruce,
Thanks for your comment. I confirm that Reena has responded to you via direct email.
Regards,
Richelle 🙂
The cyber security error could have been prevented if you adopted your supervision guideline section 5.2.2 into your overall office procedures, and not limit that requirement to parties to an agency agreement.
That is, the obligations under the Supervision guidelines, requires that changes to bank details must be confirmed via two different sources. Example would be If request made in email, that followup confirmation be made via phone rather than replying to that email.
While that guideline is specific or agency agreements, i feel that should should be part of your staff training and corporate policy overall, as it reduces the risk of fraud and makes sense.
Thanks Amanda and Reena
How can we expect the Owners Corporation to behave in the best interest of its members when we have the 3 levels of government behaving like they are not responsible if something goes wrong in our strata schemes? Instead they tell us that we have to be ” buyers beware” Why do we have governments if they are not going to bother to do their work?
We know how governments are working at the moment and the best illustration is in today’s SMH (25/11/2022) by Cathy Wilcox.
I’ve put some further thought on this and was hoping for a response from Amanda and/or Reena. I personally feel this cyber fraud case shouldnt be the responsibility of the OC, period. But I do feel there should have shared obligation/responsibility between the Engineer and Reena.
The reason I say this is, yes it was the engineer’s email account that was hacked, so he lacked the due diligence to properly protect his business from cyber fraud. At the same time Reena owes the OC a duty of care, and in accordance with the Rules of Conduct must exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence. Something like changing bank account details SHOULD have very specific operational policy and procedures. Why wouldnt you be exercising the same caution, and due diligence while exercising your agency, as you are paying the money out of a Trust Account after all.