Blab Tech
Chicago Woman Recovers $5,000 After Ghost-Tapping Scam Near Target Store
A woman in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood was charged $5,000 for a donation she never made after being approached by three men with a binder of photographs. The incident, which occurred outside a Target store on June 12, 2026, led to a police report and a dispute with Chase Bank that ultimately resulted in a refund.
Emilie Kostecka was approached by the men, who claimed the binder showed a boy who had been a victim of gun violence. One of the men offered to hold her phone while she reviewed the photos. Kostecka declined to donate, but a $5,000 charge appeared on her account shortly afterward for “carpentry services.” She said the transaction was unauthorized.
Kostecka filed a police report and opened a fraud dispute with Chase Bank. The bank initially stated that she was responsible for the transaction, but after the case was reopened, it refunded the full amount. According to CBS Chicago, several victims in the area have been scammed out of nearly $5,000 each, and it can take months to receive a refund.
The scheme is an example of ghost tapping, a form of contactless payment fraud that exploits tap‑to‑pay technology. Unlike earlier debit and credit card scams that required physical contact with a card, ghost tapping eliminates that need. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) warns that fraudsters can pose as vendors at events, markets, or solicit donations for a good cause. They may ask a victim to tap a phone or card on a reader, rush through the process, and then use the device for a higher charge.
Ghost tapping takes advantage of Near Field Communication (NFC) technology, which allows devices to exchange data over a short range of about four centimeters. Contactless payments use tokenization and encryption to protect card data, but the rapid, low‑value nature of tap‑to‑pay transactions can create a window for unauthorized charges.
According to a 2026 advisory from Group‑IB researchers, a new wave of Android malware has enabled cybercriminals to carry out unauthorized tap‑to‑pay transactions without physical access to victims’ cards. The malware can present a fake card‑verification interface, prompting a victim to place a payment card near the phone.
In the Kostecka case, the men used a card reader and asked her to tap her phone. The transaction was processed without her reviewing the business name or amount. The charge was later described by the bank as “carpentry services,” a typical example of how scammers disguise the nature of the transaction.
The BBB’s guidance on tap‑to‑pay scams includes advice to check the business name and transaction amount before confirming a payment. It also recommends that consumers keep their contactless payment limits low and monitor statements for unfamiliar charges.
The Chicago incident is part of a broader trend. A 2026 Consumer Affairs article reports that ghost‑tapping scams have surged 150% in the United States. The rise coincides with increased use of mobile wallets such as Apple Pay and Google Pay, which rely on NFC for contactless payments.
Law enforcement agencies in Chicago have increased outreach to educate the public about the scam. The police department has issued a public warning that victims should file reports promptly and contact their banks to dispute unauthorized charges.
Chase Bank’s eventual refund in Kostecka’s case demonstrates that banks can reverse unauthorized tap‑to‑pay transactions, but the process can be lengthy. The bank’s initial stance that the customer was responsible underscores the importance of prompt action and documentation.
The ghost‑tapping phenomenon illustrates how contactless payment technology can be misused. While NFC and tokenization provide strong security for legitimate transactions, the speed and low‑value limits of tap‑to‑pay can create opportunities for fraud.
Kostecka’s recovery of the $5,000 is a positive outcome, but the case highlights the need for consumer vigilance and swift reporting. As contactless payments become more widespread, both banks and consumers must remain alert to the evolving tactics of fraudsters.
The incident has prompted local banks to review their fraud detection protocols for tap‑to‑pay transactions. Regulators are also monitoring the trend, and the BBB has issued a new scam alert to help consumers recognize and avoid ghost‑tapping schemes.
In summary, a Chicago woman was scammed out of $5,000 through a ghost‑tapping scheme that exploited contactless payment technology. She recovered the funds after filing a police report and a dispute with her bank. The case underscores the growing prevalence of tap‑to‑pay scams and the importance of consumer awareness and rapid reporting to mitigate losses.
Emilie Kostecka was approached by the men, who claimed the binder showed a boy who had been a victim of gun violence. One of the men offered to hold her phone while she reviewed the photos. Kostecka declined to donate, but a $5,000 charge appeared on her account shortly afterward for “carpentry services.” She said the transaction was unauthorized.
Kostecka filed a police report and opened a fraud dispute with Chase Bank. The bank initially stated that she was responsible for the transaction, but after the case was reopened, it refunded the full amount. According to CBS Chicago, several victims in the area have been scammed out of nearly $5,000 each, and it can take months to receive a refund.
The scheme is an example of ghost tapping, a form of contactless payment fraud that exploits tap‑to‑pay technology. Unlike earlier debit and credit card scams that required physical contact with a card, ghost tapping eliminates that need. The Better Business Bureau (BBB) warns that fraudsters can pose as vendors at events, markets, or solicit donations for a good cause. They may ask a victim to tap a phone or card on a reader, rush through the process, and then use the device for a higher charge.
Ghost tapping takes advantage of Near Field Communication (NFC) technology, which allows devices to exchange data over a short range of about four centimeters. Contactless payments use tokenization and encryption to protect card data, but the rapid, low‑value nature of tap‑to‑pay transactions can create a window for unauthorized charges.
According to a 2026 advisory from Group‑IB researchers, a new wave of Android malware has enabled cybercriminals to carry out unauthorized tap‑to‑pay transactions without physical access to victims’ cards. The malware can present a fake card‑verification interface, prompting a victim to place a payment card near the phone.
In the Kostecka case, the men used a card reader and asked her to tap her phone. The transaction was processed without her reviewing the business name or amount. The charge was later described by the bank as “carpentry services,” a typical example of how scammers disguise the nature of the transaction.
The BBB’s guidance on tap‑to‑pay scams includes advice to check the business name and transaction amount before confirming a payment. It also recommends that consumers keep their contactless payment limits low and monitor statements for unfamiliar charges.
The Chicago incident is part of a broader trend. A 2026 Consumer Affairs article reports that ghost‑tapping scams have surged 150% in the United States. The rise coincides with increased use of mobile wallets such as Apple Pay and Google Pay, which rely on NFC for contactless payments.
Law enforcement agencies in Chicago have increased outreach to educate the public about the scam. The police department has issued a public warning that victims should file reports promptly and contact their banks to dispute unauthorized charges.
Chase Bank’s eventual refund in Kostecka’s case demonstrates that banks can reverse unauthorized tap‑to‑pay transactions, but the process can be lengthy. The bank’s initial stance that the customer was responsible underscores the importance of prompt action and documentation.
The ghost‑tapping phenomenon illustrates how contactless payment technology can be misused. While NFC and tokenization provide strong security for legitimate transactions, the speed and low‑value limits of tap‑to‑pay can create opportunities for fraud.
Kostecka’s recovery of the $5,000 is a positive outcome, but the case highlights the need for consumer vigilance and swift reporting. As contactless payments become more widespread, both banks and consumers must remain alert to the evolving tactics of fraudsters.
The incident has prompted local banks to review their fraud detection protocols for tap‑to‑pay transactions. Regulators are also monitoring the trend, and the BBB has issued a new scam alert to help consumers recognize and avoid ghost‑tapping schemes.
In summary, a Chicago woman was scammed out of $5,000 through a ghost‑tapping scheme that exploited contactless payment technology. She recovered the funds after filing a police report and a dispute with her bank. The case underscores the growing prevalence of tap‑to‑pay scams and the importance of consumer awareness and rapid reporting to mitigate losses.
