The Tutela Digitalis Scam-Refund Index

27 countries scored on one factual axis: when someone is TRICKED into authorising a payment themselves (APP fraud), does the law force the bank to refund it? Of 27 countries, 1 mandates reimbursement for authorised push-payment fraud. Tier distribution (derived): - strong: 1 • partial: 3 • weak: 23 Most legal frameworks protect only UNAUTHORISED transactions — money moved without you. The defining feature of a modern scam is that the victim moves the money themselves, which places it outside the protection almost everywhere. • strong — a law MANDATES reimbursement for APP/deception fraud • partial — a scheme covers SOME deception (e.g. bank-spoofing), or voluntary / case-by-case reimbursement exists, but there is no broad mandate • weak — only UNAUTHORISED transactions are covered; the con itself is not refunded country, flag, region, tier, authorised (what the regime does about authorised fraud), cap (any ceiling), report / reportUrl (the national reporting route), ombudsman (the escalation body), post (our deep guide for that country). Compiled and published by Tutela Digitalis, an independent fraud-education project with no vendor, platform or advertiser funding. Live version: https://www.tuteladigitalis.com/scam-refund-rights Every count in this README is DERIVED from the records in the accompanying files, not entered by hand. If a figure here disagrees with the data, the data is correct. This is a point-in-time record. Regimes, policies and corporate guidance change; the review date is stated above and each record carries its own source URL so any claim can be checked at source rather than taken on trust. Licence: CC BY 4.0. Free to reuse with attribution. Corrections are welcomed and acted on — contact [e-mail].