Several months into a troubling trend, scammers in Russia have shifted to a blended, or hybrid, approach that fabricates the appearance of legitimate authorities and service providers. The scheme reportedly involves actors posing as police officers, telecom operators, and officials from government services. This narrative has been documented in reports citing TASS and information from Tinkoff Bank.
In the deceptive sequence, the victim receives calls where the caller claims to represent a mobile operator and asserts that the user’s service contract has expired. To renew the service, the person is instructed to enter a code received via SMS. The moment the target confirms the renewal, the fraudsters switch to a more intimidating tactic.
During the next interaction, the caller reveals that the initial contact was a ruse designed to gauge the target’s trust and then threatens the victim with potential consequences unless they comply with further instructions. The gang claims to be conducting a security operation and insists that subsequent steps involve other so‑called authorities or bank staff who are supposedly probing a fraud ring. The intimidation is deliberate, meant to coerce the victim into following directions that appear protective but are actually aimed at extracting money.
In the second exchange, the scammers push the victim to act on instructions that allegedly safeguard funds and expose the fraud network. They insinuate that money must be moved quickly to thwart the criminals and to demonstrate vigilance. The voice on the line may urge the person to use an ATM or another banking channel to transfer funds, deposit cash, or authorize a transfer, all in the name of security. The pattern relies on fear and urgency, eroding the victim’s ability to think clearly and causing them to surrender control to the callers.
Security researchers have noted that this hybrid approach blends social engineering with a cascade of authorities, creating a believable veneer of legitimacy. The manipulation hinges on a sense of duty to protect one’s finances and data, along with a fear of being targeted by professional scammers. The tactic is particularly dangerous because it can mimic real investigative procedures and legitimate bank procedures, making it harder for individuals to distinguish between a fraudulent request and a genuine one. Cautions about this tactic have appeared in cybersecurity briefings and consumer alerts from financial institutions and national security agencies. The core lesson is to pause, verify, and independently contact the service providers or authorities using publicly listed numbers or official apps before taking action, even when the caller claims to be acting in the person’s best interest .
To reduce risk, experts recommend several practical safeguards: never disclose codes or PINs to anyone over the phone, avoid acting on urgent instructions, and independently confirm any purported service disruption or policy change by contacting the official customer service lines. It is wise to use official apps or the bank’s verified channels to review account activity, and to report suspicious calls to the bank and relevant authorities. By maintaining a calm, verification‑first approach, individuals can prevent a predatory scenario from escalating into financial loss. In a landscape where hybrid scams can imitate legitimate processes, vigilance remains the strongest defense for digital security and personal finances. (Attribution: reports from TASS and financial security researchers with reference to Tinkoff Bank.)