Hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting banking customers could be unknowingly slapped with a fraud marker without even knowing about it.

Financial crime expert Jeremy Asher reveals in his new comprehensive book about the devastating toll that ordinary and, crucially, innocent, people can suffer when wrongly labeled as being linked with fraud.

With university students returning to campuses this week, Asher warns that they are particularly vulnerable to fraud due to financial inexperience.

The rampant growth in fraud-related crime means that two in five criminal offenses are fraud-related, costing the UK economy billions each year.

In response, a public-private defense system has been developed, but a vital part of it involves issuing so-called fraud markers onto individuals and their accounts where a potentially fraudulent transaction or application has been made.

But ordinary banking customers risk being incorrectly labeled with fraud markers, and often only find out when problems with their accounts emerge or requests for loans or credit fail.

This punishment can occur even if a third-party makes an error on an individual’s behalf, or even if a criminal sets up a fake business using someone else’s real identity.

What’s more, trying to get fraud markers removed can push people to the brink, with some even considering ending their own lives.

Huge problem

Around 2 million fraud markers were in effect in 2022 via Cifas, the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance System, one of the main systems through which fraud markers are delivered.

In-depth research by Asher reveals that in 2022 Cifas itself upheld nearly 17% of the 868 requests to remove its markers, which he believes could mean several hundred thousand markers have been “incorrectly loaded and are unfair.”

The impact on individuals can be significant, with Asher stating that many of his clients seldom discuss the issue publicly even if they have successfully had fraud markers removed.

That’s because of the social stigma they fear due to being the subject of a fraud marker.

Several case studies in Asher’s book bring to life the stress and hardship caused when fraud markers are incorrectly loaded against people.

Issues range from difficulties securing finance through to a heart-wrenching example of a female victim of domestic abuse, whose repeated efforts to prove her innocence continually fell on deaf ears.

“Her mental health declined and following a desperate call from her in which I was left in no doubt that she was about to attempt suicide I called the police who thankfully went to her immediate assistance,” Asher says.

“She did not have the stomach to take her appeal further.”

Easy come, difficult go

A significant issue with fraud markers is how easily they can be applied but how difficult, or sometimes even impossible, they are to have removed.

Asher states that many of the cases he takes on for people wrongly given fraud markers “would not have come to my attention had a criminal standard of proof been applied and thorough investigations taken place.”

He criticizes the move to lower the standard of proof that organizations need to jump, likening it to reducing it to a civil level even though the victim is essentially being accused of a criminal offense.

“[Fraud markers] are akin to the type of fixed penalty notices that are imposed in the criminal justice system, such as by the police in relation to minor motoring offenses,” Asher said.

“However, there are important distinctions, not least that fraud markers are issued without notice, they are secretive, and there is no right to judicial oversight at the time a marker is loaded.”

Asher notes that while a speeding driver can challenge the evidence, accept the proposed penalty, seek an alternative penalty (like a speed awareness course) or ask a court to decide their guilt, the recipient of a fraud marker is offered no such routes.

“The punishment aspect of fraud markers is through the subject being barred from obtaining mainstream credit and banking facilities or by having to pay a premium should they be lucky enough to find an organization willing to accept the higher risk posed,” Asher added.

Post Office parallels

Trying to appeal a fraud marker is ‘anything but straightforward,” according to Asher, who notes the injustices against ‘genuinely innocent’ people is likely to be wider than that caused by the Post Office Horizon scandal.

In an echo of the Post Office saga, organizations that load fraud markers are essentially the notional judge, jury and executioner.

“The concept of fair banking is more concerned with ensuring that the products and services offered by financial organizations are fair,” Asher states.

“As demonstrated, fraud markers are loaded and policed by private organizations, with some organizations paying little regard to common notions of justice and fairness.

“Their decisions can be unfair, cruel even. I am concerned at the level of injustice I see every day.”

The book contains information about how the various databases operate, and explains how and why they were developed to help combat the rise of fraud and money laundering in the UK.

On an iPhone or iPad, the process is only slightly different. Open System Settings, go to the Accessibility section, then the Display & Text Size section. From here you can tap the Reduce Transparency toggle. Do so and all the various glassy bits of the user interface will become solid.

I recommend changing this setting and seeing how you like it. It’s not a perfect fix, but it disables the most distracting part of Liquid Glass: the constant distorted transparency. I also tested this tweak on an old iPad that was feeling slow after the iPadOS 26 update, and it’s downright snappy now.

A Few Other Suggestions

Reducing transparency really undoes the worst part of Liquid Glass, but you can go a little further. Here are a few more tips.

The Increase Contrast option is in the same menu as Reduce Transparency. Toggling it will put an outline around all the arguably too-subtle edges and outlines throughout the operating system. It makes the interface elements on the screen look outright retro, which some people may not love, but give it a shot if you find it hard to see the edges of things while using your devices.

If you’re finding your older device runs slowly, even with reduced transparency, I recommend also toggling the Reduce Motion setting, which you can find in Accessibility > Motion. Toggle this setting and the various animations used by the operating system will be simplified. This should result in a device that feels faster and more responsive.

Finally, on your iPhone, the toolbar in Safari, the default web browser, has been condensed in the latest update. Doing things like seeing all of your tabs now requires multiple taps. You can get the old toolbar back in System Settings by heading to Applications > Safari and scrolling down to the Tab Style section. Tap Bottom or Top, depending on your preferences, and you’ll find the old toolbar back.

Like I said: None of this will give you back the old, pre-Glass operating system you preferred. These tweaks do roll back the worst parts of the changes, though, so give them a shot if you’re annoyed.

Apple asked the European Union to scrap its landmark digital competition law on Thursday, arguing that it poses security risks and creates a “worse experience” for consumers.

The US tech giant and the EU have repeatedly locked horns over the bloc’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which Brussels says seeks to make the digital sector in the 27-nation bloc fairer and more open.

“The DMA should be repealed while a more appropriate fit for purpose legislative instrument is put in place,” Apple said in a formal submission to the European Commission as part of a consultation on the law.

The latest clash came as President Donald Trump sought to pressure the EU over decisions and laws affecting US Big Tech—with key industry figures including Apple chief Tim Cook moving closer to the White House since Trump’s return to power.

“It’s become clear that the DMA is leading to a worse experience for Apple users in the EU,” the tech giant said in a blog post accompanying its submission. “It’s exposing them to new risks, and disrupting the simple, seamless way their Apple products work together.”

Pushing for wholesale reform of the law if it is not repealed, Apple suggested enforcement “should be undertaken by an independent European agency” rather than the commission, the EU’s executive arm and digital watchdog.

The DMA challenges Apple’s closed ecosystem, but Brussels argues that it is necessary to do so to level the playing field for Apple’s rivals and avoid unfair market domination.

The law tells Big Tech firms what they can and cannot do on their platforms. For example, companies must offer choice screens for web browsers and search engines to give users more options.

Violations of the DMA can lead to hefty fines.

Brussels in April slapped a 500-million-euro ($590-million) fine on Apple under the DMA, which the company has appealed.

Delays for EU users

Apple says dangers are posed when Europeans can download app marketplaces that rival its App Store.

The giant also cites an increasing number of complaints from users about DMA-related changes but has not provided exact figures.

It argued in its 25-page submission that the EU’s law had forced it to delay new features in the bloc.

For example, Apple has not yet rolled out “live translation”—which allows consumers to choose another language to hear via AirPods in their ears.

The technology was launched this month in the United States but Apple says it must undertake further engineering work to ensure users’ privacy in the EU.

Under the DMA, companies including Apple must make sure their products can work seamlessly with third-party devices such as earphones.

The commission said it was “normal” companies sometimes needed more time to make sure their products were in line with the new law and that it was helping them comply.

DMA enforcement began in March 2024 and the EU’s consultation on the first review of the law ended just before midnight on Wednesday.

Independently from the digital rules, Apple has faced the heat under different EU competition rules. Brussels slapped it with a 1.8-billion-euro fine in March 2024.

© 2025 AFP