Case Library / Deepfake & Synthetic Media / Arup's $25.6M deepfake video call fraud (2024)
Deepfake & Synthetic Media Documented incident

Arup's $25.6M deepfake video call fraud (2024)

An Arup employee in Hong Kong sent HK$200M (US$25.6M) after a video call where everyone else was a deepfake. How the fake meeting worked and what stops it.

Share:

Social Engineering Examples·12 sources

In January 2024, a finance employee at Arup's Hong Kong office joined a video conference with what looked like the company's UK chief financial officer and several colleagues. Hong Kong police say every one of them except the employee was a deepfake, built from public video. The employee made 15 transfers totalling HK$200 million, about US$25.6 million, to five Hong Kong bank accounts. No money has been publicly reported as recovered. Status: Documented incident, under investigation.

Key takeaways

  • The employee first suspected the message was phishing. The video call is what changed their mind.
  • The fake participants didn't hold a conversation. Police said the clips were pre-recorded and the meeting ended abruptly.
  • After the call, instructions continued over instant messaging.
  • Arup says no internal systems were hacked. Its business and finances weren't affected.

What happened

When Event
Mid-January 2024 A message, supposedly from the UK CFO, about a confidential transaction. The employee suspects phishing
Next A video conference where the "CFO" and "colleagues" appear
Over about a week 15 transfers, HK$200 million in total, to five local accounts
29 January 2024 The employee checks with head office, finds the fraud, and police receive the report
2 February 2024 Police describe the case publicly, without naming the company
May 2024 The Financial Times names Arup, and Arup confirms

Police said two or three other staff at the branch were approached the same way. Only one lost money.

How the fake meeting worked

Police said the fraudsters took public video and audio of the executives from YouTube and used deepfake tools to make them appear to read a script. The meeting was effectively a pre-recorded performance. The employee was asked to introduce themselves, the fake participants gave instructions, and the call ended suddenly. The Hong Kong government later told the Legislative Council there was "actually no interaction" between the employee and the fraudster on the call.

Arup said: "We can confirm that fake voices and images were used." See deepfake scams and CEO fraud.

Tip: seeing your boss on video isn't approval. For any large payment, call them back on a number you already have.

The warning signs

  • An unusual, secret payment request that the employee already thought looked like phishing.
  • Participants who gave orders but never really talked.
  • A meeting that ended abruptly.
  • A move to instant messaging for the actual payment instructions.
  • Many large transfers to new accounts in a short time.

What would have stopped it

  • Video or voice is never authorisation. Write that into payment policy.
  • Call back on a known number before any unusual payment.
  • Two approvers that no executive, real or fake, can override.
  • Check with head office first, not after. That's how this fraud was finally found.

See also how to prevent deepfake fraud and how to spot a deepfake.

Common questions

How much did Arup lose to the deepfake scam?

HK$200 million, about US$25.6 million, sent in 15 transfers to five Hong Kong bank accounts.

Was everyone on the call a deepfake?

Hong Kong police said every participant except the employee was fake, built from public video.

Was Arup hacked?

Arup says none of its internal systems were compromised. The money was sent by an employee who was deceived.

Has anyone been caught?

No arrest or charge has been publicly linked to the case. Police were still investigating as of June 2024.

Sources
  • LCQ9: Combating frauds involving deepfake. Hong Kong Government, Legislative Council written reply, 26 June 2024 (primary). First-party government account of the January 2024 case: states the video conference was pre-recorded, that "there was actually no interaction between the informant and the fraudster," that the fraudster ended the meeting under a pretext and continued payment instructions by instant messaging, the loss of about HK$200 million to five local bank accounts, and that the case was still under investigation. Also distinguishes this case from the separate August 2023 deepfake loan-fraud case in which nine people were arrested. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • Arup lost $25mn in Hong Kong deepfake video conference scam. Financial Times, 16 May 2024 (secondary). Identified Arup as the victim via two people familiar with the matter; carries Arup's first-party confirmation, "We can confirm that fake voices and images were used," the statement that financial stability and internal systems were unaffected, the 18,000 staff and £2bn revenue figures, and the police line that investigations continued with no arrests. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • British engineering giant Arup revealed as $25 million deepfake scam victim. CNN Business, 16 May 2024 (secondary). Arup spokesperson's emailed statement confirming fake voices and images and the January notification to Hong Kong police. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • Finance worker pays out $25 million after video call with deepfake 'chief financial officer'. CNN, 4 February 2024 (secondary). Account of the February briefing, including the police line that in the multi-person video conference everyone the worker saw was fake. Uses "he" for the employee. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • Multinational loses HK$200 million to deepfake video conference scam, Hong Kong police say. Hong Kong Free Press / AFP, 5 February 2024 (secondary). Closest wire rendering of the police statements: report received 29 January, 15 transfers, HK$200 million, YouTube as the footage source, no arrest made, and the explicit line that "the deepfake videos were pre-recorded and did not involve dialogue or interaction with the victim." Rounds the loss to US$26 million. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • Company worker in Hong Kong pays out £20m in deepfake video call scam. The Guardian, 5 February 2024 (secondary). Quotes the Hong Kong police written statement verbatim, including the 29 January report date and the "obtaining property by deception" classification. This is the source of the "she" pronoun for the employee. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • UK engineering firm Arup falls victim to £20m deepfake scam. The Guardian, 17 May 2024 (secondary). Corroborates Arup's confirmation and the HK$200m / £20m figures, and carries the global CIO's statement on rising attack volume and sophistication. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • UK multinational Arup confirmed as victim of HK$200 million deepfake scam. South China Morning Post, 17 May 2024 (secondary). Corroborates the phishing-message-to-video-conference sequence, the 15 transfers to five bank accounts over a week, the HK$200 million / US$25.6 million figures, and the Arup spokesman quote. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • 'Everyone looked real': multinational firm's Hong Kong office loses HK$200 million after scammers stage deepfake video meeting. South China Morning Post, 4 February 2024 (secondary). The briefing report the rest of the coverage derives from: everyone present except the victim was a fake representation of real people, police highlighted it as the first of its kind in Hong Kong, and the mid-January phishing message from the UK-based CFO. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • HK firm scammed of $34 million after employee is duped by video call with deepfake of CFO. The Straits Times, 4 February 2024 (secondary). Corroborates the self-introduction detail directly from the briefing: the employee was asked to do a self-introduction but did not interact with anyone else, the fake colleagues gave orders, and the meeting ended abruptly. Also carries the detail that two to three employees at the branch were approached and only one lost money. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • Our leadership: Trust ownership. Arup (first-party). Arup's own description of its ownership: "We are a trust-owned firm without external investors," and "Since 1979 Arup has been owned by Trusts of which current and former employees of Arup Group companies are beneficiaries." Also carries the FY2023/24 figures of £2.2bn revenue and 17,996 members. Corrects the common description of Arup as a public company. Verified live 2026-09-01.
  • Cybercrime: Lessons learned from a $25m deepfake attack. World Economic Forum, February 2025 (secondary). On-record interview with Arup's global chief information officer: characterizes the incident as "technology-enhanced social engineering," states that no systems were compromised and no data affected, and gives his reason for discussing it publicly. Verified live 2026-09-01.
Cite this case

Social Engineering Examples. “Arup's $25.6M deepfake video call fraud (2024)”. Accessed 3 November 2026. https://socialengineeringexamples.com/arup-deepfake-cfo-video-call-2024

Attack Chain & Defense
1Footage gathering
What happened

Attackers selected the group's UK-based CFO and other staff as impersonation targets and collected public video and audio of them. Hong Kong Police said the material was found on YouTube. Arup is trust-owned rather than listed, so this was not investor-relations material; it is the ordinary public footage any large professional-services firm's leadership generates.

The control that would have stopped it

Public video and audio of senior staff is not realistically suppressible at Arup's size, and police traced this set to YouTube. The workable response is to assume the material already exists and harden the steps downstream, not to try to remove it.

2Synthetic media production
What happened

That footage was used to generate deepfake video and cloned voices. Police described the product as a pre-recorded video conference rather than a live puppeteered call, and said the fraudsters used deepfake technology to imitate the voices of their targets reading from a script.

The control that would have stopped it

There is no practical control on generating synthetic media from footage that is already public. The defense sits at verification, not at content generation.

3Pretext seeding
What happened

A phishing message impersonating the UK-based CFO opened the scheme in mid-January 2024, raising a confidential transaction that had to be carried out and establishing a reason for secrecy before any video was shown. The employee's first reading of it was that it was a phishing attempt.

The control that would have stopped it

Treat any request that demands secrecy around a payment as an automatic trigger for independent review at manager level, whoever appears to be asking. The employee's initial suspicion was correct; what was missing was a route to act on it that did not run back through the requester.

4Escalation to a synthetic video conference
What happened

The employee was invited onto a video conference populated by the deepfaked CFO and other deepfaked colleagues. Police said everyone visible except the employee was fabricated, which manufactured social proof that a single impersonated caller could not achieve. Police gave no count of fake participants and Arup has never confirmed one.

The control that would have stopped it

Do not treat seeing and hearing people on a call as identity evidence. Verify high-value instructions on a channel the requester did not choose. A call full of familiar senior faces is a reason for more scrutiny, not less.

5Minimizing exposure
What happened

The synthetic participants issued instructions and did not converse. Police said the employee was asked to give a self-introduction but did not otherwise interact with anyone on the call, and that the meeting then ended abruptly. Pre-recording removes the risk that an unscripted question breaks the illusion, at the cost of any real dialogue.

The control that would have stopped it

Hong Kong Police advised asking participants to move their heads or answer unscripted questions. Against pre-recorded video this defeats the attack outright, because pre-recorded participants cannot respond at all. The organizational work is making it socially normal for a junior employee to challenge a room of seniors.

6Instruction and channel switch
What happened

Reassured by the call, the employee acted on the payment instruction. The Hong Kong Government's account adds that the fraudster ended the meeting on a pretext and continued the transfer instructions over instant messaging, so the video conference served as the credibility step rather than as the channel for the whole scheme. No source describes what payment controls Arup had in place; Arup declined to discuss detail while the investigation was open.

The control that would have stopped it

Require out-of-band verification against an independently sourced number, plus dual authorization, for large or unusual transfers, with no exception for seniority or secrecy. Treat a channel switch, here from video conference to instant messaging, as a trigger to re-verify rather than as a continuation of an approved conversation.

7Payout and dispersal
What happened

The employee made 15 transfers to five Hong Kong bank accounts over about a week, splitting HK$200M across multiple accounts and transactions, a pattern harder to freeze quickly than one large transfer. The fraud surfaced only when the employee followed up with the group's headquarters.

The control that would have stopped it

Bank-side monitoring for repeated same-week transfers to newly added payees can flag this pattern before every tranche clears, and a cap on cumulative transfers to new payees forces a second review before a scheme can be split into many smaller payments.

Quick Facts
Victim
Arup (UK-based multinational design and engineering firm), Hong Kong office finance department.
Arup is owned in trust for current and former employees and has no external shareholders. About 18,000 staff and revenue above £2bn (Financial Times, May 2024; Arup reported 17,996 members and £2.2bn revenue for FY2023/24).
Company
Arup
Location
Hong Kong (victim office); Arup headquartered in London, UK
Date
2024-01
Impact
HK$200M gross, about US$25.6M converting at HK$7.81 to US$1, the spot rate on 29 January 2024, the day police received the report (about £20M).
BasismeasuredHK$200M gross per Hong Kong Police; the US dollar figure is a stated-rate conversion
No recovery has been publicly reported.
Status
Documented incident
Case Type
Real-World Incident
Sector
Construction & Engineering, Professional & Business Services
Threat Actor
unknown
Explore more

Related Cases

Browse by what this case has in common with others in the library.