Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy


Centre for Transnational Crime Prevention


As the credit card evolved from simply a replacement of cash to a large industry, it also opened opportunities for the commission of credit card fraud. Evidence of this is the concomitant growth of the credit card industry and credit card fraud in countries where the credit card is part of the payments system. An analysis of the payments systems of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia suggests these countries have experienced similar trends in the incidence of credit card fraud and in efforts to address it. These are the benchmark countries for comparison with the Indonesian case.

While the payments system in Indonesia is not as advanced as that in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, there are similarities between these countries and Indonesia in the growth of the credit card industry and incidence of credit card fraud. Therefore, Indonesia may benefit from the experiences of these countries in managing the risk of credit card fraud in their payments systems. By means of benchmarking, this study analyses trends in credit card fraud prevention in the payments systems of the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia to highlight lessons that can be applied to Indonesia from commerce and criminology perspectives.

This study concludes that the essentials of credit card fraud prevention practice in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia comprise six key areas of resource allocation: understanding of the real problems; fraud prevention policy; fraud awareness; technology-based protection, identity management; and legal deterrence. These six key areas are mainly supported by four pillars: user; institution; network; and government and industry. For purposes of this study, this framework has been dubbed the ‘Four Pillared-House of Payments Fraud Prevention Practice’.

Based on this framework, Indonesia appears to be following the footsteps of the benchmark countries by allocating its resources to develop the six key areas supported by the four pillars. However, credit card fraud prevention practice in Indonesia is at lower level of robustness than those in the benchmark countries. Comparative deficiencies between Indonesia and benchmark countries are indicated, inter alia, by a lack of reliable fraud data collection, management and distribution mechanisms as well as a lack of effective and efficient identity management practice.

This implies that Indonesia’s first step in improving its credit card fraud prevention practices should be an examination of those of other countries. On the basis of this examination, deficiencies and weaknesses in the system should be identified and action taken to make it more consistent with credit card fraud prevention practices of other countries. This may not only improve prevention practices but also allow Indonesian regulators to identify vulnerable areas within the credit card fraud prevention system and anticipate possible offence displacement from other countries. Past experience shows that credit card fraud, as with other crimes, often moves from places perceived by perpetrators to have strong defences against it to places with weaker defences. For this reason, it is essential that Indonesia keeps up with the rest of the world in terms of credit card fraud prevention.