EDS is another type of fraud
This text is a continuation of the discussion of problems related to the safety of using digital signatures.
The essence of the problem is as follows: each CA can use its own rules for identification, including on copies of documents via the Internet. As a result, it becomes possible for any citizen A to receive and use the EDS of citizen B without the knowledge of B. In previous articles, examples of fraudulent use of the EDS obtained in this way were given and advice was given on how to protect yourself from these specific types of fraud. There is no answer to the question of how to prevent a third party from receiving an electronic digital signature in your name.
In a recent article from Rosreestr, in fact, it recognizes the possibility of fraud with EDS of individuals and gives advice on how to spend your time and money trying to protect yourself from such fraud.
')
In another recent article , another situation is described with the fraudulent use of digital signatures, protection methods are not clear.
The purpose of this text is, firstly, to show that there is at least one more widespread type of electronic signature fraud, the victims of which are, as a rule, small companies, including “Nulls”, secondly, to share the available experience and turn to the experience of the audience with the question of what to do if you become a victim of such fraud.
I have encountered two similar cases over the past few years. The scheme is approximately the following - at the end of the reporting period, after the successful delivery of quarterly reports, when the accounting department has already relaxed and exhaled, the tax adjustment comes in, which shows high turnover (tens to hundreds of millions of rubles) and a large VAT payable. Options are possible, for example, the VAT shown is small, but the turnover is large, and some of them, even an accountant with average experience, at first glance defines it as “left-wing”.
A certification authority can be located anywhere in the country. The counterparty companies are at any other ends, and at the time of detection of the problem, they may no longer exist or be in the process of liquidation.
In the best case, the problem becomes known before the end of the reporting period and the accounting department can send its correction. In the worst case, the problem will become known after the company’s account is blocked for tax evasion.
The first case I encountered (the end of the first quarter of 2018) was “the worst.” The problem became apparent after blocking the account and the subsequent process has not ended yet.
The tax position in this matter is extremely simple: your signatures are certified in accordance with the law, taxes must be paid. Any appeal to the tax is considered in accordance with the regulations (the time for considering the letter is a month).
Investigative actions are still ongoing. And before they end, the company’s accounts are blocked from the victim for tax evasion and personal property is seized.
In the discussion of the previous article, commentators wrote that independent attempts to block a fictitious digital signature can subsequently be regarded negatively by the investigation. In the first case, the victim refused to take any actions on his own, besides appealing to the investigating authorities, as a result, the investigation is still ongoing, at least until the end of the investigation, for tax evasion, I repeat, the company’s accounts are blocked and personal property is seized. What would happen if he independently blocked the fictitious EDS by visiting the CA at the other end of the country - is not obvious.
The second case is fresh - the end of the 2nd quarter of 2019 - and belongs to the category of “best”. The fact of submitting false statements was discovered before the end of the reporting period.
The director and accountant collected documents and went to the tax office. In short, the tax position on this issue is not our area of ​​competence, we have a regulation, we can block the EDS and not accept reports only in case of suspicion of illegal activity, in your case there are no signs of illegal activity and suspicious transactions in the submitted statements; we can block the EDS if the director writes a statement that the company and the EDS are registered without his knowledge, in your case the director admits that he registered the company and one EDS, but did not register another - this situation is beyond the scope of our regulations; in our regulations your situation is absent. What to do? Contact the police. Where exactly to the police? Call 02, you will be sent to the desired department. What to do with illegal reporting? Write an adjustment. And if the attackers after ours write their own? It is possible, check more often so that this does not happen and write us a letter, we will consider it in accordance with the regulations. According to the regulations, the response time is one month, during which time you will have time to block our account. If the tax is not paid on time, the account will be blocked.
At first, all the conversations were carried out only by phone from the entrance, but as soon as the name of the company sounded, the person who spoke on the phone began to fuss, write out passes, personally met and led him to the office of someone from the top management who met the visitors very favorably. However, the reason for this wonderful phenomenon quickly became clear - the name of the company coincided to one letter and was consonant with the name of the company, to which the tax administration had some interest. After this, benevolence was reduced, but the fact of being in the office of the manager allowed me to get into several more offices and get particles of different information. In particular, one of the offices said that such cases are so widespread that there is even a certain internal reliability rating of CAs of different companies - such and such companies are most often involved in issuing fake EDS, but, for example. this one (don’t think that I advertise their services) - they have everything very strictly and there were no cases of falsification.
A certification center that issued a fake EDS is located near the border of the region. A call was made there and the conversation was wonderful too. A CA employee said that the CA has not been engaged in EDS for about a month (a fake EDS was issued more than a month ago), but they will help you with our partner’s mobile phone. To the question whether an EDS was issued for such and such a person and on what basis, the answer was received: yes, the person came in person and we have a full package of documents, here he is in front of me, including a statement with a blue seal and a color copy of the passport. What needs to be done to get copies of these documents and block this digital signature? And dictate your e-mail to me and I will immediately send you copies of documents, and the digital signature, right now, for a minute ... I already blocked it. Did you block the EDS just by the call (it is not known from whom)? Do not worry, this is a standard procedure, if there is a suspicion of illegal actions, we immediately do so.
Oddly enough, copies of the documents were received, including a color copy of this passport with a replaced photo and someone else's signature, in high quality, with glare from the holograms in the right places, a neat corner stamp on the photo, etc. and a statement with a blue fake stamp. It is hoped that this will help prove that the second EDS was indeed obtained fraudulently.
Obviously, the situation is widespread and well known to tax authorities. But that does not make life easier for victims.
If the fact of fraud was discovered before the end of the reporting period, then, apparently, the correct actions will promptly send the correction, take action to block the fictitious digital signature, while checking that there are no fraudulent corrections "on top" of yours and contact the law enforcement authorities. What will be the result is not yet clear.
What to do if the fact of fraud is discovered after the account is already blocked is not clear. Rosreestr on duty says “powers ... have been confirmed in the established manner” and to prove that it’s really not you who issued the second EDS and are trying to avoid paying taxes - it becomes your personal problem. Investigative actions are slow, the tax one is faster and clearer - seizure of accounts, property, travel abroad, etc.
Who has experience in such situations - please share, because the procedure is not always obvious, and incorrect actions can aggravate the situation.
The essence of the problem is as follows: each CA can use its own rules for identification, including on copies of documents via the Internet. As a result, it becomes possible for any citizen A to receive and use the EDS of citizen B without the knowledge of B. In previous articles, examples of fraudulent use of the EDS obtained in this way were given and advice was given on how to protect yourself from these specific types of fraud. There is no answer to the question of how to prevent a third party from receiving an electronic digital signature in your name.
In a recent article from Rosreestr, in fact, it recognizes the possibility of fraud with EDS of individuals and gives advice on how to spend your time and money trying to protect yourself from such fraud.
')
In another recent article , another situation is described with the fraudulent use of digital signatures, protection methods are not clear.
The purpose of this text is, firstly, to show that there is at least one more widespread type of electronic signature fraud, the victims of which are, as a rule, small companies, including “Nulls”, secondly, to share the available experience and turn to the experience of the audience with the question of what to do if you become a victim of such fraud.
I have encountered two similar cases over the past few years. The scheme is approximately the following - at the end of the reporting period, after the successful delivery of quarterly reports, when the accounting department has already relaxed and exhaled, the tax adjustment comes in, which shows high turnover (tens to hundreds of millions of rubles) and a large VAT payable. Options are possible, for example, the VAT shown is small, but the turnover is large, and some of them, even an accountant with average experience, at first glance defines it as “left-wing”.
A certification authority can be located anywhere in the country. The counterparty companies are at any other ends, and at the time of detection of the problem, they may no longer exist or be in the process of liquidation.
In the best case, the problem becomes known before the end of the reporting period and the accounting department can send its correction. In the worst case, the problem will become known after the company’s account is blocked for tax evasion.
Case one
The first case I encountered (the end of the first quarter of 2018) was “the worst.” The problem became apparent after blocking the account and the subsequent process has not ended yet.
The tax position in this matter is extremely simple: your signatures are certified in accordance with the law, taxes must be paid. Any appeal to the tax is considered in accordance with the regulations (the time for considering the letter is a month).
Investigative actions are still ongoing. And before they end, the company’s accounts are blocked from the victim for tax evasion and personal property is seized.
In the discussion of the previous article, commentators wrote that independent attempts to block a fictitious digital signature can subsequently be regarded negatively by the investigation. In the first case, the victim refused to take any actions on his own, besides appealing to the investigating authorities, as a result, the investigation is still ongoing, at least until the end of the investigation, for tax evasion, I repeat, the company’s accounts are blocked and personal property is seized. What would happen if he independently blocked the fictitious EDS by visiting the CA at the other end of the country - is not obvious.
Case two
The second case is fresh - the end of the 2nd quarter of 2019 - and belongs to the category of “best”. The fact of submitting false statements was discovered before the end of the reporting period.
The director and accountant collected documents and went to the tax office. In short, the tax position on this issue is not our area of ​​competence, we have a regulation, we can block the EDS and not accept reports only in case of suspicion of illegal activity, in your case there are no signs of illegal activity and suspicious transactions in the submitted statements; we can block the EDS if the director writes a statement that the company and the EDS are registered without his knowledge, in your case the director admits that he registered the company and one EDS, but did not register another - this situation is beyond the scope of our regulations; in our regulations your situation is absent. What to do? Contact the police. Where exactly to the police? Call 02, you will be sent to the desired department. What to do with illegal reporting? Write an adjustment. And if the attackers after ours write their own? It is possible, check more often so that this does not happen and write us a letter, we will consider it in accordance with the regulations. According to the regulations, the response time is one month, during which time you will have time to block our account. If the tax is not paid on time, the account will be blocked.
At first, all the conversations were carried out only by phone from the entrance, but as soon as the name of the company sounded, the person who spoke on the phone began to fuss, write out passes, personally met and led him to the office of someone from the top management who met the visitors very favorably. However, the reason for this wonderful phenomenon quickly became clear - the name of the company coincided to one letter and was consonant with the name of the company, to which the tax administration had some interest. After this, benevolence was reduced, but the fact of being in the office of the manager allowed me to get into several more offices and get particles of different information. In particular, one of the offices said that such cases are so widespread that there is even a certain internal reliability rating of CAs of different companies - such and such companies are most often involved in issuing fake EDS, but, for example. this one (don’t think that I advertise their services) - they have everything very strictly and there were no cases of falsification.
A certification center that issued a fake EDS is located near the border of the region. A call was made there and the conversation was wonderful too. A CA employee said that the CA has not been engaged in EDS for about a month (a fake EDS was issued more than a month ago), but they will help you with our partner’s mobile phone. To the question whether an EDS was issued for such and such a person and on what basis, the answer was received: yes, the person came in person and we have a full package of documents, here he is in front of me, including a statement with a blue seal and a color copy of the passport. What needs to be done to get copies of these documents and block this digital signature? And dictate your e-mail to me and I will immediately send you copies of documents, and the digital signature, right now, for a minute ... I already blocked it. Did you block the EDS just by the call (it is not known from whom)? Do not worry, this is a standard procedure, if there is a suspicion of illegal actions, we immediately do so.
Oddly enough, copies of the documents were received, including a color copy of this passport with a replaced photo and someone else's signature, in high quality, with glare from the holograms in the right places, a neat corner stamp on the photo, etc. and a statement with a blue fake stamp. It is hoped that this will help prove that the second EDS was indeed obtained fraudulently.
What to do
Obviously, the situation is widespread and well known to tax authorities. But that does not make life easier for victims.
If the fact of fraud was discovered before the end of the reporting period, then, apparently, the correct actions will promptly send the correction, take action to block the fictitious digital signature, while checking that there are no fraudulent corrections "on top" of yours and contact the law enforcement authorities. What will be the result is not yet clear.
What to do if the fact of fraud is discovered after the account is already blocked is not clear. Rosreestr on duty says “powers ... have been confirmed in the established manner” and to prove that it’s really not you who issued the second EDS and are trying to avoid paying taxes - it becomes your personal problem. Investigative actions are slow, the tax one is faster and clearer - seizure of accounts, property, travel abroad, etc.
Who has experience in such situations - please share, because the procedure is not always obvious, and incorrect actions can aggravate the situation.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/461885/
All Articles