Hong Kong police recorded 2,020 instant messaging account hijacking cases between January and July 2026, marking a 154 percent increase from the same period last year, with WhatsApp accounting for 1,993 of those cases or 99 percent of the total. This represents a nearly 170 percent rise from the 739 WhatsApp cases reported during the corresponding months in 2025 and exceeds the 1,669 cases logged across all of 2025.

Total financial losses from these cases reached HK$146.3 million to HK$150 million, reflecting a 22.7 percent decrease from HK$189.2 million lost in the corresponding period last year. Despite the lower overall losses, individual victims suffered significant damages, with some losing between HK$1 million and over HK$10 million. One victim alone lost HK$12.2 million (US$1.55 million).

Among the WhatsApp-related scams, 1,591 cases involved impersonation of relatives and friends, accounting for approximately 80 percent of these incidents. Police explained that scammers typically gain access to a victim's contact list once they steal an account, then use that information to target others. Most current cases involve phishing messages, with some fraudsters contacting victims directly through WhatsApp while pretending to be from the WhatsApp Security Center. These messages often contain warnings designed to trick recipients into clicking links and providing personal information.

After stealing a WhatsApp account, scammers do not immediately attempt fraud. Instead, they study the victim's personal life, identity, and past conversations before selecting targets. They then mimic the victim's communication style to request urgent money transfers. In one reported case, a victim was purchasing property when their account was compromised. The scammer impersonated both a real estate agent and a lawyer, successfully obtaining approximately HK$1.17 million in deposit money. In another case, a businessman's father had his WhatsApp account stolen. The perpetrator impersonated the father, suspected of using deepfake technology to create voice messages, and defrauded the victim of over HK$10 million.

Superintendent Hui Yee-wai of the cyber security and technology crime bureau linked the rise in WhatsApp account theft scams to residents' frequent use of social media and instant messaging platforms. The official also noted that artificial intelligence has made creating fake websites significantly easier, with every scam involving such fraudulent sites. Police explained that scammers manipulate search engine results to place fake websites at the top of searches. Once victims enter their phone numbers and verification codes, attackers gain full control of the accounts.

Common tactics include fake security notifications, phishing messages, and fraudulent login pages designed to steal phone numbers, verification codes, or trick users into scanning malicious QR codes. Cyber Security and Technology Crime Bureau Superintendent Rachel Hui Yee-wai states that scammers analyze chat histories to mimic communication styles and use deepfake technology to create convincing voice messages. Meta's APAC Director of Public Policy, Products Philip Chua notes that WhatsApp has implemented security measures including two-factor authentication and suspicious activity detection, while urging users to remain cautious and avoid clicking unknown links.

To protect themselves, citizens are advised not to click on links indiscriminately. When receiving requests for business payments or money transfers from relatives through instant messaging apps, individuals should verify the requester's identity through alternative methods such as making a phone call. Before transferring funds, the recipient's account name should be carefully checked. Additionally, people are encouraged to limit personal information shared on social media, as scammers can easily obtain photos or voice recordings and use AI-generated deepfakes to carry out fraud. Tightening privacy and security settings on social media accounts is also recommended. Authorities emphasize that verification through known phone numbers and enabling two-step authentication are critical protective measures. Citizens are advised to immediately stop responding to urgent transfer requests via chat and instead confirm directly through trusted contacts.

Original Sources/Tags: scmp.com, scmp.com, thestandard.com.hk, konghub.net, thehk.news, scmp.com, moroccoworldnews.com, news.rthk.hk, (whatsapp)

The article offers no actionable steps for a reader to take. It reports statistics on WhatsApp account hijacking cases and financial losses in Hong Kong but does not tell a reader how to protect their own account, how to recognize a hijacking attempt, or what to do if they become a victim. There are no links to official reporting channels, no instructions for enabling security features like two factor authentication, and no contact information for the cyber security bureau mentioned in the text. The piece simply states what the police observed about crime trends, leaving the reader with nothing concrete to do or try.

The educational depth is shallow. The article mentions artificial intelligence being used to create fake websites but does not explain how that technology works in this context, what a fake website looks like, or how it differs from legitimate sites. It cites a 169.7 percent increase in cases and a 22.7 percent decrease in total losses without explaining why those numbers move in opposite directions or what that suggests about the nature of the scams. The term account hijacking is used without describing the typical methods attackers use to take over a WhatsApp account, such as social engineering or verification code interception. No causes, systems, or reasoning are explained, so the information remains surface level and unexplained.

Personal relevance is limited for readers outside Hong Kong, and even for residents the article does not translate the statistics into personal risk assessment. A general reader gains no insight into their own likelihood of being targeted based on their usage habits, nor does the article explain whether certain demographics or behaviors correlate with higher victimization. The mention of extreme individual losses up to HK$12.2 million highlights severity but does not help a person evaluate their own exposure. The information affects a specific jurisdiction and a specific platform but fails to connect to the daily decisions of most readers about how they use messaging apps.

The public service function is weak. The article recounts police statistics and a superintendent’s commentary but offers no safety guidance for the public, no warning signs to watch for, and no emergency steps for someone who has just lost access to their account. It presents the rise in cases as a fact without framing it as a call to action for users to secure their accounts. The effect is to inform the public that a problem exists, not to equip the public to respond to it. There are no resources, no preventive advice, and no constructive direction for concerned readers.

Practical advice is entirely absent. The article urges no steps, offers no tips, and provides no script for a reader who wants to secure their WhatsApp account or report a scam. An ordinary reader cannot act on any of this beyond perhaps discussing it with others. There is no guidance on how to verify the authenticity of a website linked in a message, how to handle a request for a verification code, or how to recover a hijacked account through WhatsApp’s official process.

Long term impact is negligible. The article focuses on a seven month reporting period and year over year comparisons. It does not suggest habits such as regularly reviewing linked devices on WhatsApp, being skeptical of unsolicited messages asking for codes, or understanding that legitimate services never ask for two factor authentication codes. Once the news cycle moves on, the reader retains no durable framework for handling similar threats on any messaging platform.

Emotional impact leans toward alarm without empowerment. The headline figures of a 169.7 percent surge and victims losing millions create a sense of crisis and vulnerability. The article provides no constructive outlet for that concern, no steps to channel worry into improved personal security, and no calming context about how effective basic protections can be. The net effect is to normalize fear without reducing confusion about how to stay safe.

The language uses institutional authority to maintain attention. The phrase Superintendent Hui Yee-wai of the cyber security and technology crime bureau gives the claim official weight without naming specific investigative findings or preventive measures the bureau is taking. The description of artificial intelligence in creating fake websites frames the threat as high tech and novel rather than explaining that the core trick remains social engineering. The contrast between soaring case numbers and falling total losses is presented without analysis, which can make the trend feel more mysterious and threatening than it needs to be. While the underlying data is real, the presentation relies on dramatic percentage increases and official titles rather than explanatory depth, which is characteristic of attention driven reporting.

Missed opportunities to teach or guide are numerous. The article could have explained how to enable two step verification on WhatsApp, described the common pattern of a hijacking attempt where a contact claims to have sent a code by mistake, listed the official Hong Kong police reporting channels for cybercrime, or outlined how to check for unknown linked devices in WhatsApp settings. It could have given readers a checklist for evaluating suspicious messages. For a reader who wants to keep learning, the most reliable approach is to consult the official WhatsApp security help center, follow guidance from recognized cybersecurity organizations that publish plain language advisories, and apply general digital hygiene principles such as never sharing verification codes and treating unexpected urgent requests from contacts as suspicious until verified through a separate channel.

Real value the article failed to provide: If you use WhatsApp or any messaging app, the most practical protections rely on universal principles. First, enable two step verification in the app settings immediately. This adds a PIN that anyone trying to register your number on a new device must enter, which stops most hijacking attempts cold. Second, never share a verification code with anyone, no matter who they claim to be or how urgent they sound. Legitimate services and real contacts never need you to forward a code sent to your phone. Third, periodically check the linked devices section in WhatsApp settings and log out any session you do not recognize. Fourth, if you receive a strange message from a known contact asking for money, a code, or a click on a link, contact that person through a different method such as a phone call or face to face before doing anything. Fifth, be skeptical of any message that creates urgency or threatens consequences for not acting quickly, as pressure is a hallmark of social engineering. Sixth, if you lose access to your account, use WhatsApp’s official in app support to report the issue and request recovery; do not trust third party services that claim to hack back your account. Seventh, report scam attempts to your local police or cyber security authority so they can track trends and warn others. These steps require no special tools, only awareness and the habit of pausing before reacting to unexpected requests.

The text says losses "reached HK$146.3 million" but then says this is "a decrease of 22.7 percent" from last year. This makes the big money number sound like a new high, but the facts show it is actually lower than before. The wording hides that people lost less money this year. The order of words pushes readers to think the problem is getting worse when the numbers say otherwise.

The text says Superintendent Hui Yee-wai "linked the rise to residents' frequent use of social media and messaging platforms." This puts the blame on everyday people instead of the scammers who steal from them. The words make it sound like users caused the problem by using their phones too much. This hides the real criminals and makes victims seem careless. The bias helps shift blame away from those who do harm.

The text says some victims "lost between HK$1 million and over HK$10 million" but only gives one exact number for a single victim. This makes the range sound huge and scary without proving most people lost that much. The words push fear by showing extreme numbers that most readers will never face. This helps the police look like heroes fighting a massive crisis. The bias hides how rare the biggest losses really are.

The text says the loss is "approximately $18.8 million USD" but does not say who made this change or why. This soft word hides that someone picked this number to make the loss sound smaller in a foreign currency. The words make the money seem less real to readers who think in dollars. This helps the police downplay how much pain the victims feel. The bias makes the harm seem easier to ignore.

The text says "artificial intelligence in creating fake websites" without saying who uses this AI or how common it is. This pushes fear about new technology without proof that AI is the main cause. The words make AI sound like the villain behind every scam. This helps tech companies or governments control how people see new tools. The bias hides that most scams still use old tricks and human lies.

The text carries several emotions that shape how readers understand the growing problem of WhatsApp account hijacking scams in Hong Kong. Alarm appears strongly when the text states that cases rose sharply by 169.7 percent from 739 to 1,993 between January and July 2026, and that this already exceeds the total number of cases reported across all of 2025. This sharp increase creates a sense of urgency and danger, signaling that the threat is accelerating faster than expected and demands immediate attention. Fear emerges when individual victims are described as losing between HK$1 million and over HK$10 million, with one person losing HK$12.2 million. These large numbers make readers worry about how devastating these scams can be and how quickly someone can lose everything. Concern is present in Superintendent Hui Yee-wai's explanation that the rise is linked to residents' frequent use of social media and messaging platforms, as well as the growing use of artificial intelligence in creating fake websites. This concern serves to highlight how modern technology is being used against people and how everyday habits can make them vulnerable.

These emotions guide the reader's reaction by creating a sense of urgency and personal risk. The alarm and sharp increase in cases make readers feel that something serious is happening and that the problem is getting worse quickly. The fear from the large financial losses makes readers worry about their own safety and the safety of their families, as anyone could become a victim. The concern about technology use helps readers understand why these scams are spreading and makes them reflect on their own online behavior. Together, these emotional cues steer the reader toward taking the threat seriously and considering protective measures.

The writer uses emotion to persuade by choosing words and numbers that sound more impactful than neutral reporting. Instead of simply stating that cases increased, the text uses the phrase "rose sharply" and includes the exact percentage of 169.7 percent, which makes the growth feel sudden and overwhelming. The specific financial figures, especially the mention of one victim losing HK$12.2 million, make the consequences feel real and extreme rather than abstract statistics. The writer also repeats the idea of increasing numbers by comparing the current period to both the same period last year and the entire previous year, which reinforces the message that the problem is growing rapidly. The reference to artificial intelligence and fake websites adds a modern, technological threat that sounds more sophisticated and dangerous. These writing tools increase emotional impact by making the problem feel immediate, personal, and serious, steering the reader's attention toward the need for awareness and action.

(Update/use as neccessary)