In an era where financial tools are becoming increasingly integral to daily life, industry professionals are urging the banking sector to reassess its digital infrastructure to curb economic abuse. A recent study from Northumbria University emphasizes how outdated or poorly designed banking systems can inadvertently enable perpetrators, prompting a push for proactive reforms.
Economic abuse involves an abuser controlling or undermining a victim’s financial independence through tactics like limiting access to their funds, manipulating debts, or even interfering with employment and assets.
This form of coercion gained formal legal status in England and Wales via the Domestic Abuse Act of 2021, underscoring its role in broader domestic violence patterns.
Titled “Designing Out Economic Abuse in the UK Banking Industry: A Call To Action,” the research report exposes how everyday banking features—such as apps, accounts, and transaction protocols—can be exploited by abusers to inflict damage.
By leveraging these tools, perpetrators might monitor spending, block transfers, or accrue unauthorized debts, trapping victims in cycles of dependency.
The research employed a collaborative approach, engaging six survivors of economic abuse alongside industry professionals from UK banks.
This participatory method ensured that the insights were grounded in real experiences, blending victim perspectives with industry know-how to identify practical solutions.
Dr. Clare Wiper, an assistant professor in criminology at Northumbria University‘s School of Humanities and Social Sciences, highlighted the limitations of existing strategies.
“Most banking interventions against economic abuse are reactive, kicking in only after damage is done. Our collaborators demonstrated that banks can shift to prevention without always needing huge budgets or cutting-edge innovations. Simple steps, like adding a safety-oriented query when setting up joint accounts or prioritizing survivor security in app designs, can make a big difference.”
Survivors in the study pinpointed several high-impact changes.
These include bolstering employee education to spot signs of abuse more effectively and revising account agreements.
For instance, adopting a “tenants in common” model—similar to property law—could enable banks to divide joint funds fairly during abuse cases.
Additionally, mandating dual approval for substantial withdrawals would add a layer of protection.
Yet, the banking industry grapples with key obstacles.
Strict regulations can hinder swift actions, while rapid tech evolution often outpaces safeguards, giving abusers new avenues for exploitation.
Responding to abusive behaviors also risks escalating dangers for victims, such as provoking retaliation.
On the brighter side, the research report outlines actionable paths forward.
Banks could potentially repurpose anti-fraud algorithms in order to flag abusive patterns or introduce stricter identity checks for digital dealings, turning potential vulnerabilities into strengths.
Dr. Belén Barros Pena, an interaction designer and researcher at City St George’s, University of London, stressed the broader implications.
“Our seamless, instant financial systems, while convenient, carry hidden risks and can be twisted for malice. Current designs don’t inherently block these abuses. To rectify this, we need to amplify survivor voices in the creation of these technologies.”
This call to action arrives at a critical juncture, as digital finance continues to expand.
By embedding safety into their core operations, banks not only comply with evolving laws but also foster a more equitable economic landscape.
Ultimately, these reforms could transform banking from a tool of control into one of individual user empowerment, helping individuals escape abusive dynamics.
As the sector evolves, prioritizing so-called victim-centered innovation will be key to eradicating this insidious form of harm.
