Uber and Bolt vs drivers union: are drivers employees or independent contractors?
On Monday, April 17, 2023, the Amalgamated Union of App-based Transport Workers of Nigeria (AUATWON)—the union for ride-hailing drivers threatened a million-man protest in response to Bolt and Uber’s move to revoke the new union’s licence. AUATWON was established this year after years of continuing friction between ride-hailing apps and drivers. A primary source of contention is driver earnings and the commission that the apps take. Many drivers argue that companies like Uber and Bolt refuse to reduce their commission—both companies charge 20% commission on each ride—and price wars have significantly decreased their earnings. But the most recent fallout between the drivers and ride-hailing companies centres on Uber and Bolt are challenging the legality of the newly formed AUATWON. According to the union’s secretary general, Comrade Ibrahim Ayoade, “Uber and Bolt wrote to the Ministry of Labour to withdraw our certificate because they didn’t employ us therefore we don’t have a right to form a union. They are crossing their boundary. They are playing with fire this time. And very soon we shall lead a million-man protest against them.” In a statement to Technext, Uber admits that it wrote to the Registrar of Trade Unions at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment but insists that its letter does not “close the door on dialogue” but seeks to clarify “incorrect claims that drivers are employees, not independent contractors.” Uber and Bolt’s letter to the Ministry of Labour will highlight a legal question that both companies have across the countries they operate: are drivers full-time employees or independent contractors? Both companies have argued in US and UK courts that their drivers are independent contractors, not employees. This distinction is important because in the US, for instance, independent contractors cannot form unions or bargain collectively. In Africa, there have been a string of lawsuits against Uber in Kenya and South Africa, with drivers contesting the independent contractor status the ride-hailing company has ascribed to them. In Nigeria, the ride-hailing drivers finally scored a major victory in January 2023. AUATWON’s legality will be contested The Nigerian Trade Unions Act grants AUATWON legal authority to participate in making decisions about the working conditions of ride-hailing drivers. Despite the Trade Unions Act, Uber and Bolt’s letter to the Ministry of labour suggest that AUATWON’s legality will be questioned. According to Ayomide Ogunsanwo, a legal practitioner, “If the Nigerian Trade Unions Act (which is an overriding law backed by the Nigerian Labour law) empowers the union to have a say in determining the terms and conditions of drivers, there is nothing Uber and Bolt can do about it.” According to Ogunsanwo, Bolt and Uber should engage in dialogue with the union rather than resorting to license revocation threats. On December 4, 2018, the National Industrial Court (NIC), Lagos division, delivered a landmark judgment in Suit NO. NICN/LA/546/2017 between Oladapo Olatunji & Daniel John v Uber Technologies System Nigeria Ltd & Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited. The Plaintiffs, Olatunji and Daniel, sought declaratory reliefs and urged the court to hold that they were employees of the Defendants, Uber and Taxify (now Bolt) and not independent contractors. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim because they failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an employment relationship between the parties (Taxify and Uber). However, the court did not also pronounce that the Plaintiffs were independent contractors. Following the court judgment, the drivers filed an appeal which is yet to be determined. Even though the court is yet to clarify the position of the drivers, if Uber or Bolt file a suit, the court may be forced to make a ruling. Ibitayo Reju, a Senior Counsel at Dentons Acas Law, told TechCabal, “Although the court is yet to ascertain the position of the Nigerian drivers, if Uber and Taxify had filed a counterclaim and asked the court to pronounce that they were independent contractors, the court would have been constrained to take a position.” Ibitayo expressed optimism in the Nigerian Court of Appeal making a pronouncement as to whether the Plaintiffs are indeed employees of Uber and Bolt or independent contractors. “Given the decision of the NIC in this matter, I hope that the Court of Appeal will invoke its statutory powers under section 22 of the Court of Appeal Act and emphatically make a pronouncement as to whether the Plaintiffs are indeed employees of the Defendant or independent contractors,” he concluded.
Read MoreUber and Bolt vs drivers union: are drivers employees or independent contractors?
On Monday, April 17, 2023, the Amalgamated Union of App-based Transport Workers of Nigeria (AUATWON)—the union for ride-hailing drivers threatened a million-man protest in response to Bolt and Uber’s move to revoke the new union’s licence. AUATWON was established this year after years of continuing friction between ride-hailing apps and drivers. A primary source of contention is driver earnings and the commission that the apps take. Many drivers argue that companies like Uber and Bolt refuse to reduce their commission—both companies charge 20% commission on each ride—and price wars have significantly decreased their earnings. But the most recent fallout between the drivers and ride-hailing companies centres on Uber and Bolt are challenging the legality of the newly formed AUATWON. According to the union’s secretary general, Comrade Ibrahim Ayoade, “Uber and Bolt wrote to the Ministry of Labour to withdraw our certificate because they didn’t employ us therefore we don’t have a right to form a union. They are crossing their boundary. They are playing with fire this time. And very soon we shall lead a million-man protest against them.” In a statement to Technext, Uber admits that it wrote to the Registrar of Trade Unions at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment but insists that its letter does not “close the door on dialogue” but seeks to clarify “incorrect claims that drivers are employees, not independent contractors.” Uber and Bolt’s letter to the Ministry of Labour will highlight a legal question that both companies have across the countries they operate: are drivers full-time employees or independent contractors? Both companies have argued in US and UK courts that their drivers are independent contractors, not employees. This distinction is important because in the US, for instance, independent contractors cannot form unions or bargain collectively. In Africa, there have been a string of lawsuits against Uber in Kenya and South Africa, with drivers contesting the independent contractor status the ride-hailing company has ascribed to them. In Nigeria, the ride-hailing drivers finally scored a major victory in January 2023. AUATWON’s legality will be contested The Nigerian Trade Unions Act grants AUATWON legal authority to participate in making decisions about the working conditions of ride-hailing drivers. Despite the Trade Unions Act, Uber and Bolt’s letter to the Ministry of labour suggest that AUATWON’s legality will be questioned. According to Ayomide Ogunsanwo, a legal practitioner, “If the Nigerian Trade Unions Act (which is an overriding law backed by the Nigerian Labour law) empowers the union to have a say in determining the terms and conditions of drivers, there is nothing Uber and Bolt can do about it.” According to Ogunsanwo, Bolt and Uber should engage in dialogue with the union rather than resorting to license revocation threats. On December 4, 2018, the National Industrial Court (NIC), Lagos division, delivered a landmark judgment in Suit NO. NICN/LA/546/2017 between Oladapo Olatunji & Daniel John v Uber Technologies System Nigeria Ltd & Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited. The Plaintiffs, Olatunji and Daniel, sought declaratory reliefs and urged the court to hold that they were employees of the Defendants, Uber and Taxify (now Bolt) and not independent contractors. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim because they failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an employment relationship between the parties (Taxify and Uber). However, the court did not also pronounce that the Plaintiffs were independent contractors. Following the court judgment, the drivers filed an appeal which is yet to be determined. Even though the court is yet to clarify the position of the drivers, if Uber or Bolt file a suit, the court may be forced to make a ruling. Ibitayo Reju, a Senior Counsel at Dentons Acas Law, told TechCabal, “Although the court is yet to ascertain the position of the Nigerian drivers, if Uber and Taxify had filed a counterclaim and asked the court to pronounce that they were independent contractors, the court would have been constrained to take a position.” Ibitayo expressed optimism in the Nigerian Court of Appeal making a pronouncement as to whether the Plaintiffs are indeed employees of Uber and Bolt or independent contractors. “Given the decision of the NIC in this matter, I hope that the Court of Appeal will invoke its statutory powers under section 22 of the Court of Appeal Act and emphatically make a pronouncement as to whether the Plaintiffs are indeed employees of the Defendant or independent contractors,” he concluded.
Read MoreUber and Bolt vs drivers union: are drivers employees or independent contractors?
On Monday, April 17, 2023, the Amalgamated Union of App-based Transport Workers of Nigeria (AUATWON)—the union for ride-hailing drivers threatened a million-man protest in response to Bolt and Uber’s move to revoke the new union’s licence. AUATWON was established this year after years of continuing friction between ride-hailing apps and drivers. A primary source of contention is driver earnings and the commission that the apps take. Many drivers argue that companies like Uber and Bolt refuse to reduce their commission—both companies charge 20% commission on each ride—and price wars have significantly decreased their earnings. But the most recent fallout between the drivers and ride-hailing companies centres on Uber and Bolt are challenging the legality of the newly formed AUATWON. According to the union’s secretary general, Comrade Ibrahim Ayoade, “Uber and Bolt wrote to the Ministry of Labour to withdraw our certificate because they didn’t employ us therefore we don’t have a right to form a union. They are crossing their boundary. They are playing with fire this time. And very soon we shall lead a million-man protest against them.” In a statement to Technext, Uber admits that it wrote to the Registrar of Trade Unions at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment but insists that its letter does not “close the door on dialogue” but seeks to clarify “incorrect claims that drivers are employees, not independent contractors.” Uber and Bolt’s letter to the Ministry of Labour will highlight a legal question that both companies have across the countries they operate: are drivers full-time employees or independent contractors? Both companies have argued in US and UK courts that their drivers are independent contractors, not employees. This distinction is important because in the US, for instance, independent contractors cannot form unions or bargain collectively. In Africa, there have been a string of lawsuits against Uber in Kenya and South Africa, with drivers contesting the independent contractor status the ride-hailing company has ascribed to them. In Nigeria, the ride-hailing drivers finally scored a major victory in January 2023. AUATWON’s legality will be contested The Nigerian Trade Unions Act grants AUATWON legal authority to participate in making decisions about the working conditions of ride-hailing drivers. Despite the Trade Unions Act, Uber and Bolt’s letter to the Ministry of labour suggest that AUATWON’s legality will be questioned. According to Ayomide Ogunsanwo, a legal practitioner, “If the Nigerian Trade Unions Act (which is an overriding law backed by the Nigerian Labour law) empowers the union to have a say in determining the terms and conditions of drivers, there is nothing Uber and Bolt can do about it.” According to Ogunsanwo, Bolt and Uber should engage in dialogue with the union rather than resorting to license revocation threats. On December 4, 2018, the National Industrial Court (NIC), Lagos division, delivered a landmark judgment in Suit NO. NICN/LA/546/2017 between Oladapo Olatunji & Daniel John v Uber Technologies System Nigeria Ltd & Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited. The Plaintiffs, Olatunji and Daniel, sought declaratory reliefs and urged the court to hold that they were employees of the Defendants, Uber and Taxify (now Bolt) and not independent contractors. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim because they failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an employment relationship between the parties (Taxify and Uber). However, the court did not also pronounce that the Plaintiffs were independent contractors. Following the court judgment, the drivers filed an appeal which is yet to be determined. Even though the court is yet to clarify the position of the drivers, if Uber or Bolt file a suit, the court may be forced to make a ruling. Ibitayo Reju, a Senior Counsel at Dentons Acas Law, told TechCabal, “Although the court is yet to ascertain the position of the Nigerian drivers, if Uber and Taxify had filed a counterclaim and asked the court to pronounce that they were independent contractors, the court would have been constrained to take a position.” Ibitayo expressed optimism in the Nigerian Court of Appeal making a pronouncement as to whether the Plaintiffs are indeed employees of Uber and Bolt or independent contractors. “Given the decision of the NIC in this matter, I hope that the Court of Appeal will invoke its statutory powers under section 22 of the Court of Appeal Act and emphatically make a pronouncement as to whether the Plaintiffs are indeed employees of the Defendant or independent contractors,” he concluded.
Read MoreUber and Bolt vs drivers union: are drivers employees or independent contractors?
On Monday, April 17, 2023, the Amalgamated Union of App-based Transport Workers of Nigeria (AUATWON)—the union for ride-hailing drivers threatened a million-man protest in response to Bolt and Uber’s move to revoke the new union’s licence. AUATWON was established this year after years of continuing friction between ride-hailing apps and drivers. A primary source of contention is driver earnings and the commission that the apps take. Many drivers argue that companies like Uber and Bolt refuse to reduce their commission—both companies charge 20% commission on each ride—and price wars have significantly decreased their earnings. But the most recent fallout between the drivers and ride-hailing companies centres on Uber and Bolt are challenging the legality of the newly formed AUATWON. According to the union’s secretary general, Comrade Ibrahim Ayoade, “Uber and Bolt wrote to the Ministry of Labour to withdraw our certificate because they didn’t employ us therefore we don’t have a right to form a union. They are crossing their boundary. They are playing with fire this time. And very soon we shall lead a million-man protest against them.” In a statement to Technext, Uber admits that it wrote to the Registrar of Trade Unions at the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment but insists that its letter does not “close the door on dialogue” but seeks to clarify “incorrect claims that drivers are employees, not independent contractors.” Uber and Bolt’s letter to the Ministry of Labour will highlight a legal question that both companies have across the countries they operate: are drivers full-time employees or independent contractors? Both companies have argued in US and UK courts that their drivers are independent contractors, not employees. This distinction is important because in the US, for instance, independent contractors cannot form unions or bargain collectively. In Africa, there have been a string of lawsuits against Uber in Kenya and South Africa, with drivers contesting the independent contractor status the ride-hailing company has ascribed to them. In Nigeria, the ride-hailing drivers finally scored a major victory in January 2023. AUATWON’s legality will be contested The Nigerian Trade Unions Act grants AUATWON legal authority to participate in making decisions about the working conditions of ride-hailing drivers. Despite the Trade Unions Act, Uber and Bolt’s letter to the Ministry of labour suggest that AUATWON’s legality will be questioned. According to Ayomide Ogunsanwo, a legal practitioner, “If the Nigerian Trade Unions Act (which is an overriding law backed by the Nigerian Labour law) empowers the union to have a say in determining the terms and conditions of drivers, there is nothing Uber and Bolt can do about it.” According to Ogunsanwo, Bolt and Uber should engage in dialogue with the union rather than resorting to license revocation threats. On December 4, 2018, the National Industrial Court (NIC), Lagos division, delivered a landmark judgment in Suit NO. NICN/LA/546/2017 between Oladapo Olatunji & Daniel John v Uber Technologies System Nigeria Ltd & Taxify Technology Nigeria Limited. The Plaintiffs, Olatunji and Daniel, sought declaratory reliefs and urged the court to hold that they were employees of the Defendants, Uber and Taxify (now Bolt) and not independent contractors. The court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ claim because they failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate an employment relationship between the parties (Taxify and Uber). However, the court did not also pronounce that the Plaintiffs were independent contractors. Following the court judgment, the drivers filed an appeal which is yet to be determined. Even though the court is yet to clarify the position of the drivers, if Uber or Bolt file a suit, the court may be forced to make a ruling. Ibitayo Reju, a Senior Counsel at Dentons Acas Law, told TechCabal, “Although the court is yet to ascertain the position of the Nigerian drivers, if Uber and Taxify had filed a counterclaim and asked the court to pronounce that they were independent contractors, the court would have been constrained to take a position.” Ibitayo expressed optimism in the Nigerian Court of Appeal making a pronouncement as to whether the Plaintiffs are indeed employees of Uber and Bolt or independent contractors. “Given the decision of the NIC in this matter, I hope that the Court of Appeal will invoke its statutory powers under section 22 of the Court of Appeal Act and emphatically make a pronouncement as to whether the Plaintiffs are indeed employees of the Defendant or independent contractors,” he concluded.
Read MoreSouth Africa is the cybercrime hub of Africa, according to INTERPOL
According to INTERPOL’s 2022 Africa Cyberthreat Assessment report, South Africa leads the continent in the number of cybersecurity threats identified. In 2022, the country had 230 million threat detections in total. In second place was Morocco at 71 million. Of the 230 million detected threats in the country, 219 million were e-mail-related threats. South Africa also had the highest targeted ransomware and business email compromise (BEC) attempts. The exploitation of these cyber vulnerabilities within South Africa was further highlighted by Accenture, who identified that South Africa has the third highest number of cybercrime victims worldwide, at a cost of R2.2 billion a year. The scale of cyber criminality in the country is further evidenced by the fact that the country saw a 100% increase in mobile banking application fraud and is estimated to suffer 577 malware attacks an hour. The South African Banking Risk Information Centre (SABRIC) reported that “gross fraud losses on South African-issued cards increased by 20.5% from 2018 to 2019” due to CNP fraud and banking malware attacks, positioning South Africa as second only to Russia in this regard. In fraud cases like this, stolen data from carding scams is auctioned off to the highest bidder or sold within underground forums – meaning unsuspecting victims of credit card fraud in the African region may have their credit card information misused globally following the breach. Another growing concern for South Africa is cryptocurrency scams, in which threat actors seek to defraud victims of their cryptocurrency. Over the last year, South Africa has recorded two large-scale crypto scams. The first was a Ponzi scheme where thousands of investors were allegedly scammed out of $588 million in Bitcoin by the company Mirror Trading International in 2020. The second case involved the trading company Africrypt, whose founders allegedly absconded with $3.6 billion from investors in April 2021. Cryptocurrency scams are quite lucrative in South Africa, which is in the top ten list of countries worldwide where threat actors received the highest volume of cryptocurrency from illicit addresses. In addition to investment scams, a growing threat in the cryptocurrency space is that of wallet phishing, where threat actors utilize false or misleading advertisements, imposter domains, fake wallets or decentralized finance platforms to obtain a victim’s cryptocurrency wallet private keys, thus enabling them to steal funds from the victim’s accounts. According to the report, South Africa was also the country most heavily affected by targeted ransomware in the first quarter of 2021, with a variety of families such as Crysis, Nefilim, Ryuk, Clop, and Conti ransomware noted in the attacks. Egypt was the next hardest-hit country with a similar profile of targeted ransomware detection, while Tunisia was the third most affected country. With an internet penetration rate of over 70%, it would seem as though the large number of South Africans online provides an opportunity for cybercriminals to take advantage of unsuspecting internet users.
Read MoreSouth Africa is the cybercrime hub of Africa, according to INTERPOL
According to INTERPOL’s 2022 Africa Cyberthreat Assessment report, South Africa leads the continent in the number of cybersecurity threats identified. In 2022, the country had 230 million threat detections in total. In second place was Morocco at 71 million. Of the 230 million detected threats in the country, 219 million were e-mail-related threats. South Africa also had the highest targeted ransomware and business email compromise (BEC) attempts. The exploitation of these cyber vulnerabilities within South Africa was further highlighted by Accenture, who identified that South Africa has the third highest number of cybercrime victims worldwide, at a cost of R2.2 billion a year. The scale of cyber criminality in the country is further evidenced by the fact that the country saw a 100% increase in mobile banking application fraud and is estimated to suffer 577 malware attacks an hour. The South African Banking Risk Information Centre (SABRIC) reported that “gross fraud losses on South African-issued cards increased by 20.5% from 2018 to 2019” due to CNP fraud and banking malware attacks, positioning South Africa as second only to Russia in this regard. In fraud cases like this, stolen data from carding scams is auctioned off to the highest bidder or sold within underground forums – meaning unsuspecting victims of credit card fraud in the African region may have their credit card information misused globally following the breach. Another growing concern for South Africa is cryptocurrency scams, in which threat actors seek to defraud victims of their cryptocurrency. Over the last year, South Africa has recorded two large-scale crypto scams. The first was a Ponzi scheme where thousands of investors were allegedly scammed out of $588 million in Bitcoin by the company Mirror Trading International in 2020. The second case involved the trading company Africrypt, whose founders allegedly absconded with $3.6 billion from investors in April 2021. Cryptocurrency scams are quite lucrative in South Africa, which is in the top ten list of countries worldwide where threat actors received the highest volume of cryptocurrency from illicit addresses. In addition to investment scams, a growing threat in the cryptocurrency space is that of wallet phishing, where threat actors utilize false or misleading advertisements, imposter domains, fake wallets or decentralized finance platforms to obtain a victim’s cryptocurrency wallet private keys, thus enabling them to steal funds from the victim’s accounts. According to the report, South Africa was also the country most heavily affected by targeted ransomware in the first quarter of 2021, with a variety of families such as Crysis, Nefilim, Ryuk, Clop, and Conti ransomware noted in the attacks. Egypt was the next hardest-hit country with a similar profile of targeted ransomware detection, while Tunisia was the third most affected country. With an internet penetration rate of over 70%, it would seem as though the large number of South Africans online provides an opportunity for cybercriminals to take advantage of unsuspecting internet users.
Read MoreSouth Africa is the cybercrime hub of Africa, according to INTERPOL
According to INTERPOL’s 2022 Africa Cyberthreat Assessment report, South Africa leads the continent in the number of cybersecurity threats identified. In 2022, the country had 230 million threat detections in total. In second place was Morocco at 71 million. Of the 230 million detected threats in the country, 219 million were e-mail-related threats. South Africa also had the highest targeted ransomware and business email compromise (BEC) attempts. The exploitation of these cyber vulnerabilities within South Africa was further highlighted by Accenture, who identified that South Africa has the third highest number of cybercrime victims worldwide, at a cost of R2.2 billion a year. The scale of cyber criminality in the country is further evidenced by the fact that the country saw a 100% increase in mobile banking application fraud and is estimated to suffer 577 malware attacks an hour. The South African Banking Risk Information Centre (SABRIC) reported that “gross fraud losses on South African-issued cards increased by 20.5% from 2018 to 2019” due to CNP fraud and banking malware attacks, positioning South Africa as second only to Russia in this regard. In fraud cases like this, stolen data from carding scams is auctioned off to the highest bidder or sold within underground forums – meaning unsuspecting victims of credit card fraud in the African region may have their credit card information misused globally following the breach. Another growing concern for South Africa is cryptocurrency scams, in which threat actors seek to defraud victims of their cryptocurrency. Over the last year, South Africa has recorded two large-scale crypto scams. The first was a Ponzi scheme where thousands of investors were allegedly scammed out of $588 million in Bitcoin by the company Mirror Trading International in 2020. The second case involved the trading company Africrypt, whose founders allegedly absconded with $3.6 billion from investors in April 2021. Cryptocurrency scams are quite lucrative in South Africa, which is in the top ten list of countries worldwide where threat actors received the highest volume of cryptocurrency from illicit addresses. In addition to investment scams, a growing threat in the cryptocurrency space is that of wallet phishing, where threat actors utilize false or misleading advertisements, imposter domains, fake wallets or decentralized finance platforms to obtain a victim’s cryptocurrency wallet private keys, thus enabling them to steal funds from the victim’s accounts. According to the report, South Africa was also the country most heavily affected by targeted ransomware in the first quarter of 2021, with a variety of families such as Crysis, Nefilim, Ryuk, Clop, and Conti ransomware noted in the attacks. Egypt was the next hardest-hit country with a similar profile of targeted ransomware detection, while Tunisia was the third most affected country. With an internet penetration rate of over 70%, it would seem as though the large number of South Africans online provides an opportunity for cybercriminals to take advantage of unsuspecting internet users.
Read MoreSouth Africa is the cybercrime hub of Africa, according to INTERPOL
According to INTERPOL’s 2022 Africa Cyberthreat Assessment report, South Africa leads the continent in the number of cybersecurity threats identified. In 2022, the country had 230 million threat detections in total. In second place was Morocco at 71 million. Of the 230 million detected threats in the country, 219 million were e-mail-related threats. South Africa also had the highest targeted ransomware and business email compromise (BEC) attempts. The exploitation of these cyber vulnerabilities within South Africa was further highlighted by Accenture, who identified that South Africa has the third highest number of cybercrime victims worldwide, at a cost of R2.2 billion a year. The scale of cyber criminality in the country is further evidenced by the fact that the country saw a 100% increase in mobile banking application fraud and is estimated to suffer 577 malware attacks an hour. The South African Banking Risk Information Centre (SABRIC) reported that “gross fraud losses on South African-issued cards increased by 20.5% from 2018 to 2019” due to CNP fraud and banking malware attacks, positioning South Africa as second only to Russia in this regard. In fraud cases like this, stolen data from carding scams is auctioned off to the highest bidder or sold within underground forums – meaning unsuspecting victims of credit card fraud in the African region may have their credit card information misused globally following the breach. Another growing concern for South Africa is cryptocurrency scams, in which threat actors seek to defraud victims of their cryptocurrency. Over the last year, South Africa has recorded two large-scale crypto scams. The first was a Ponzi scheme where thousands of investors were allegedly scammed out of $588 million in Bitcoin by the company Mirror Trading International in 2020. The second case involved the trading company Africrypt, whose founders allegedly absconded with $3.6 billion from investors in April 2021. Cryptocurrency scams are quite lucrative in South Africa, which is in the top ten list of countries worldwide where threat actors received the highest volume of cryptocurrency from illicit addresses. In addition to investment scams, a growing threat in the cryptocurrency space is that of wallet phishing, where threat actors utilize false or misleading advertisements, imposter domains, fake wallets or decentralized finance platforms to obtain a victim’s cryptocurrency wallet private keys, thus enabling them to steal funds from the victim’s accounts. According to the report, South Africa was also the country most heavily affected by targeted ransomware in the first quarter of 2021, with a variety of families such as Crysis, Nefilim, Ryuk, Clop, and Conti ransomware noted in the attacks. Egypt was the next hardest-hit country with a similar profile of targeted ransomware detection, while Tunisia was the third most affected country. With an internet penetration rate of over 70%, it would seem as though the large number of South Africans online provides an opportunity for cybercriminals to take advantage of unsuspecting internet users.
Read MoreSouth Africa is the cybercrime hub of Africa, according to INTERPOL
According to INTERPOL’s 2022 Africa Cyberthreat Assessment report, South Africa leads the continent in the number of cybersecurity threats identified. In 2022, the country had 230 million threat detections in total. In second place was Morocco at 71 million. Of the 230 million detected threats in the country, 219 million were e-mail-related threats. South Africa also had the highest targeted ransomware and business email compromise (BEC) attempts. The exploitation of these cyber vulnerabilities within South Africa was further highlighted by Accenture, who identified that South Africa has the third highest number of cybercrime victims worldwide, at a cost of R2.2 billion a year. The scale of cyber criminality in the country is further evidenced by the fact that the country saw a 100% increase in mobile banking application fraud and is estimated to suffer 577 malware attacks an hour. The South African Banking Risk Information Centre (SABRIC) reported that “gross fraud losses on South African-issued cards increased by 20.5% from 2018 to 2019” due to CNP fraud and banking malware attacks, positioning South Africa as second only to Russia in this regard. In fraud cases like this, stolen data from carding scams is auctioned off to the highest bidder or sold within underground forums – meaning unsuspecting victims of credit card fraud in the African region may have their credit card information misused globally following the breach. Another growing concern for South Africa is cryptocurrency scams, in which threat actors seek to defraud victims of their cryptocurrency. Over the last year, South Africa has recorded two large-scale crypto scams. The first was a Ponzi scheme where thousands of investors were allegedly scammed out of $588 million in Bitcoin by the company Mirror Trading International in 2020. The second case involved the trading company Africrypt, whose founders allegedly absconded with $3.6 billion from investors in April 2021. Cryptocurrency scams are quite lucrative in South Africa, which is in the top ten list of countries worldwide where threat actors received the highest volume of cryptocurrency from illicit addresses. In addition to investment scams, a growing threat in the cryptocurrency space is that of wallet phishing, where threat actors utilize false or misleading advertisements, imposter domains, fake wallets or decentralized finance platforms to obtain a victim’s cryptocurrency wallet private keys, thus enabling them to steal funds from the victim’s accounts. According to the report, South Africa was also the country most heavily affected by targeted ransomware in the first quarter of 2021, with a variety of families such as Crysis, Nefilim, Ryuk, Clop, and Conti ransomware noted in the attacks. Egypt was the next hardest-hit country with a similar profile of targeted ransomware detection, while Tunisia was the third most affected country. With an internet penetration rate of over 70%, it would seem as though the large number of South Africans online provides an opportunity for cybercriminals to take advantage of unsuspecting internet users.
Read MoreSouth Africa is the cybercrime hub of Africa, according to INTERPOL
According to INTERPOL’s 2022 Africa Cyberthreat Assessment report, South Africa leads the continent in the number of cybersecurity threats identified. In 2022, the country had 230 million threat detections in total. In second place was Morocco at 71 million. Of the 230 million detected threats in the country, 219 million were e-mail-related threats. South Africa also had the highest targeted ransomware and business email compromise (BEC) attempts. The exploitation of these cyber vulnerabilities within South Africa was further highlighted by Accenture, who identified that South Africa has the third highest number of cybercrime victims worldwide, at a cost of R2.2 billion a year. The scale of cyber criminality in the country is further evidenced by the fact that the country saw a 100% increase in mobile banking application fraud and is estimated to suffer 577 malware attacks an hour. The South African Banking Risk Information Centre (SABRIC) reported that “gross fraud losses on South African-issued cards increased by 20.5% from 2018 to 2019” due to CNP fraud and banking malware attacks, positioning South Africa as second only to Russia in this regard. In fraud cases like this, stolen data from carding scams is auctioned off to the highest bidder or sold within underground forums – meaning unsuspecting victims of credit card fraud in the African region may have their credit card information misused globally following the breach. Another growing concern for South Africa is cryptocurrency scams, in which threat actors seek to defraud victims of their cryptocurrency. Over the last year, South Africa has recorded two large-scale crypto scams. The first was a Ponzi scheme where thousands of investors were allegedly scammed out of $588 million in Bitcoin by the company Mirror Trading International in 2020. The second case involved the trading company Africrypt, whose founders allegedly absconded with $3.6 billion from investors in April 2021. Cryptocurrency scams are quite lucrative in South Africa, which is in the top ten list of countries worldwide where threat actors received the highest volume of cryptocurrency from illicit addresses. In addition to investment scams, a growing threat in the cryptocurrency space is that of wallet phishing, where threat actors utilize false or misleading advertisements, imposter domains, fake wallets or decentralized finance platforms to obtain a victim’s cryptocurrency wallet private keys, thus enabling them to steal funds from the victim’s accounts. According to the report, South Africa was also the country most heavily affected by targeted ransomware in the first quarter of 2021, with a variety of families such as Crysis, Nefilim, Ryuk, Clop, and Conti ransomware noted in the attacks. Egypt was the next hardest-hit country with a similar profile of targeted ransomware detection, while Tunisia was the third most affected country. With an internet penetration rate of over 70%, it would seem as though the large number of South Africans online provides an opportunity for cybercriminals to take advantage of unsuspecting internet users.
Read More