What Is Australia's Scams Prevention Framework (SPF)

Scams have become one of the most persistent and costly forms of financial crime affecting consumers and businesses worldwide. In Australia alone, billions of dollars are lost each year through fraud schemes involving impersonation, phishing, investment scams, romance scams, and increasingly sophisticated digital deception.

Governments and regulators globally are increasingly recognising that scams represent not only a consumer protection issue but also a systemic risk affecting financial systems, digital platforms, and national economic trust. Traditional fraud prevention systems have primarily focused on identifying suspicious financial transactions once they occur. However, many scams originate far earlier in the digital ecosystem—often involving phishing websites, impersonation campaigns, fake advertisements, and organised criminal networks operating across jurisdictions.

Recognising that effective prevention requires coordinated action across industries, the Australian Government introduced the Scams Prevention Framework (SPF). The SPF represents a significant shift in how organisations are expected to approach scam prevention, moving beyond reactive fraud detection toward proactive detection, disruption, and collaboration.

This article explains what the Scams Prevention Framework is, why it was introduced, and what it means for organisations operating in Australia's digital and financial ecosystem.

The Growing Challenge of Scams

Scams are not new, but their scale and sophistication have increased dramatically in recent years. Advances in digital communication, online platforms, and global connectivity have enabled criminal groups to operate complex scam operations that target individuals and institutions across multiple channels.

Modern scams frequently involve several coordinated components, including:

• Fake websites impersonating legitimate brands
• Phishing emails or SMS messages designed to capture credentials
• Social media advertisements promoting fraudulent investment schemes
• Criminal networks recruiting money mules to move funds
• Payment channels used to transfer or launder stolen money

These operations often span multiple sectors and jurisdictions. A single scam may involve digital platforms, telecommunications networks, financial institutions, and international hosting providers.

Because scams operate across multiple systems, no single organisation has complete visibility of the entire scheme. Financial institutions may detect suspicious transactions, but they may not see the phishing website or impersonation campaign that initiated the fraud. Likewise, digital platforms may remove malicious content without visibility into downstream financial consequences.

This fragmentation has made scams difficult to prevent effectively.

Scam Harm Does Not Always Sit With the Brand Being Used

A defining characteristic of modern scams is that the organisation whose brand is used in a scam is often not the organisation that ultimately bears the financial loss.

Scammers frequently impersonate trusted brands in order to gain credibility and encourage victims to take action. Messages or websites may appear to originate from well-known organisations such as government agencies, postal services, or toll operators. These impersonations create the trust needed to convince victims to click links, provide credentials, or authorise payments.

However, the financial loss generated by the scam often occurs elsewhere in the ecosystem.

For example, scammers may impersonate brands such as Australia Post (AusPost), Linkt, or myGov in phishing messages or SMS campaigns. Victims are directed to fraudulent websites designed to harvest login credentials or prompt urgent payments. When funds are eventually transferred, the loss typically occurs through the banking system, meaning financial institutions and consumers absorb the immediate financial impact.

In many cases, the impersonated brand itself may not even fall within the initial regulatory scope of the Scams Prevention Framework (SPF) obligations. Yet its brand is still used as the entry point through which scams spread.

This dynamic highlights an important reality: scam harm is rarely confined to a single organisation. Instead, scams propagate across multiple sectors, with infrastructure, communication channels, and payment systems all playing a role at different stages of the attack.

As a result, the problem addressed by the Scams Prevention Framework is not merely one of brand misuse. It is fundamentally a cross-sector transmission problem, where scam harm moves through different parts of the digital and financial ecosystem before ultimately resulting in financial loss.

Understanding this cross-sector nature of scam harm is critical to understanding why coordinated prevention, intelligence sharing, and disruption are central elements of the Scams Prevention Framework.

Why Australia Introduced the Scams Prevention Framework

In response to the growing scale of scam-related losses, the Australian Government has taken a more coordinated regulatory approach.

The Scams Prevention Framework (SPF) was introduced as part of broader national efforts to reduce scam activity and improve cooperation between industries and government agencies.

According to regulatory guidance and explanations from bodies such as the Australian Treasury and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA), the SPF is designed to:

• strengthen obligations on organisations to prevent scams
• improve detection of scam activity
• encourage intelligence sharing between sectors
• support disruption of scam operations
• improve responses to scam victims

Rather than focusing solely on the point of financial loss, the SPF recognises that scams must be addressed earlier in the lifecycle.

The framework encourages organisations to actively identify scam activity, share intelligence, and take steps to disrupt scams before they result in financial harm.

What the Scams Prevention Framework Is Designed to Do

The Scams Prevention Framework (SPF) is designed to address the systemic nature of scams rather than isolated incidents.

Historically, many organisations approached scam risk primarily through the lens of internal fraud controls. However, scam operations rarely exist within the boundaries of a single organisation. They typically involve multiple stages across different sectors, including communication channels, online platforms, and financial systems.

The Scams Prevention Framework therefore aims to shift the focus toward ecosystem-level prevention.

Broadly speaking, the framework seeks to achieve several outcomes:

Earlier detection of scam activity

Organisations are expected to identify signals that may indicate emerging scam campaigns, including impersonation infrastructure, suspicious communication patterns, or coordinated fraud activity.

Improved information sharing

Because scam activity often spans multiple sectors, intelligence sharing between organisations and regulators becomes critical for identifying larger patterns of criminal behaviour.

More effective disruption

The framework encourages organisations to take active steps to disrupt scams before financial loss occurs. This may include blocking malicious infrastructure, preventing fraudulent payments, or cooperating with other organisations to dismantle scam networks.

Greater accountability

Institutions operating in sectors frequently exploited by scammers are expected to demonstrate governance processes and risk management practices that address scam risks within their services.

By focusing on prevention, intelligence, and disruption, the Scams Prevention Framework represents a move toward system-level risk management, rather than relying solely on post-incident fraud detection.

Key Principles of the Scams Prevention Framework

Although implementation details may continue to evolve, the SPF is built around several core operational expectations for organisations.

These include:

Prevention

Organisations should take reasonable steps to prevent scams from reaching customers. This includes identifying scam risks associated with their services and implementing controls to reduce exposure.

Detection

Institutions are expected to monitor for indicators of scam activity. This may involve analysing patterns, identifying suspicious behaviour, or monitoring signals that may indicate emerging scam campaigns.

Reporting

The SPF encourages improved reporting of scam activity and intelligence sharing across industries and government bodies.

Better reporting allows regulators and organisations to identify trends, emerging threats, and systemic vulnerabilities.

Disruption

One of the more significant aspects of the SPF is the emphasis on disrupting scams, not merely detecting them.

Disruption may involve removing scam infrastructure, blocking fraudulent accounts, preventing payments, or collaborating with industry partners to dismantle scam operations.

Response

The framework also recognises the importance of supporting victims of scams and ensuring institutions respond appropriately when incidents occur.

Governance and accountability

Organisations are expected to demonstrate governance structures, risk management processes, and evidence showing how they are addressing scam risks.

Together, these principles represent a shift toward a more comprehensive and coordinated model of scam prevention.

A Shift From Fraud Detection to Scam Prevention

One of the most significant changes introduced by the SPF is the shift in emphasis from reactive fraud detection to proactive scam prevention.

Many scam operations follow a predictable lifecycle:

1. Impersonation or social engineering
2. Victim engagement
3. Credential or data capture
4. Payment initiation
5. Money movement and laundering

Traditional fraud controls often operate only at the payment stage, while effective scam prevention requires visibility across the entire lifecycle.

For example, instead of only detecting suspicious payments, organisations may need to consider:

• monitoring for phishing websites impersonating their brand
• identifying scam campaigns targeting customers
• detecting patterns across multiple scam reports
• sharing intelligence with other institutions or regulators

This broader perspective reflects the reality that scams often begin outside the systems where financial losses ultimately occur.

In many scam scenarios, the institution that carries the brand, the institution that bears the financial loss, and the institution that falls under regulatory pressure may all be different.

Operational Challenges for Organisations

Although the goals of the SPF are widely supported, implementing them presents several practical challenges. Many organisations were not originally designed to monitor scam activity beyond their own systems.

Common challenges include:

Limited visibility outside the organisation

Institutions may detect fraud within their own systems but have limited insight into scam infrastructure operating elsewhere on the internet.

Fragmented intelligence

Scam signals may come from multiple sources, including customer reports, external intelligence feeds, and internal investigations. Without proper coordination, these signals can remain disconnected.

Difficulty identifying scam campaigns

Individual incidents may appear unrelated, even when they are part of a coordinated scam campaign targeting multiple victims.

Challenges disrupting infrastructure

Removing scam websites or impersonation campaigns can require coordination with hosting providers, domain registrars, and other organisations across jurisdictions.

These challenges highlight why collaboration and improved intelligence capabilities are often necessary for effective scam prevention.

The Importance of Scam Intelligence

A key concept emerging in discussions around scam prevention is the role of actionable scam intelligence.

Scam intelligence refers to information that helps organisations understand how scams operate, including:

• infrastructure used by scammers
• impersonation campaigns targeting brands
• behavioural patterns of scam actors
• relationships between different scam incidents

When intelligence is analysed and validated, it can help organisations move from reacting to individual incidents toward identifying larger patterns of scam activity.

This can enable earlier detection and more coordinated disruption efforts.

For example, identifying multiple phishing websites linked to the same scam campaign may allow organisations to dismantle the infrastructure before additional victims are targeted.

Collaboration Across Industries

Another important aspect of the SPF is the emphasis on collaboration between sectors.

Because scams often span multiple industries, preventing them effectively requires coordination between organisations such as:

• financial institutions
• telecommunications providers
• digital platforms
• regulators and government agencies

Industry initiatives and intelligence exchanges may play a role in enabling this collaboration.

By sharing information about scam patterns and infrastructure, organisations may be better positioned to detect and disrupt emerging threats.

No single organisation can observe every stage of a scam. Effective prevention therefore depends on the ability of multiple sectors to contribute different pieces of visibility into the scam ecosystem.

The Role of Regulators

Several regulatory bodies are involved in Australia's broader anti-scam efforts, including initiatives coordinated through national programs designed to reduce scam activity.

The development of the Scams Prevention Framework has been supported by policy initiatives and regulatory discussions involving bodies such as the Australian Treasury, the ACCC's National Anti-Scam Centre, and the Australian Financial Complaints Authority (AFCA).

These efforts aim to improve coordination between government agencies and industry participants, ensuring that intelligence and disruption activities can be conducted more effectively.

Regulators may also use information gathered through reporting and intelligence sharing to identify systemic issues and encourage improvements across industries.

As regulatory expectations evolve, organisations may need to demonstrate how their systems and processes support scam prevention.

What SPF Means for Organisations

For many organisations, the Scams Prevention Framework represents a shift in how scam risk is approached.

Rather than focusing solely on internal fraud controls, institutions may increasingly consider their role in the wider digital ecosystem where scams originate and operate.

This may involve strengthening capabilities related to:

• collecting and analysing scam signals
• identifying scam campaigns
• monitoring impersonation and phishing infrastructure
• coordinating disruption activities
• sharing intelligence across sectors

Developing these capabilities can help organisations respond more effectively to emerging threats while supporting regulatory expectations.

Looking Ahead

The Scams Prevention Framework reflects a broader global trend toward more proactive approaches to scam prevention.

Governments and regulators around the world are recognising that addressing scams requires more than detecting fraudulent transactions after the fact.

It requires better visibility into how scams operate, improved intelligence sharing, and coordinated disruption of criminal infrastructure.

While the SPF represents an important step for Australia, it may also signal a shift toward more comprehensive approaches to scam prevention internationally.

Organisations that develop strong capabilities in scam detection, intelligence, and disruption will likely be better positioned to respond to both evolving threats and regulatory expectations.

The Scams Prevention Framework reflects a broader regulatory recognition that scams are not simply isolated fraud incidents but systemic risks that propagate across digital platforms, telecommunications infrastructure, and financial systems.

Conclusion

The Scams Prevention Framework (SPF) represents a significant development in Australia's response to the growing challenge of scams.

By emphasising prevention, detection, reporting, disruption, and collaboration, the framework encourages organisations to take a more proactive role in addressing scam activity across the digital ecosystem.

Although implementing these expectations presents challenges, it also creates opportunities for institutions to strengthen their ability to protect customers and reduce exposure to fraud.

As scams continue to evolve, approaches that combine intelligence, collaboration, and operational disruption are likely to play an increasingly important role in safeguarding consumers and organisations alike.

Frequently Asked Questions