I get the impression that in the United States, regulation to shift fraud liability to the banks, and away from the individual customers, is more effective than relying upon law enforcement.

If someone breaks into my home and steals my stuff, I may hope for law enforcement to catch those responsible. I have no expectation that my property would be returned to me.

Thinking through this analogy, property-theft insurance is affordable because law enforcement is effective where I live, and I am expected to maintain reasonable precautions against theft.

I don't know how to prevent my phone number from being used without my permission. So I don't know how to apply law enforcement as a remedy.

> If someone breaks into my home and steals my stuff, I may hope for law enforcement to catch those responsible.

Dream on. In most US jurisdictions, property crime is very low priority for law enforcement. Even if you have cameras recording the thieves in action, LE might create a report but they will probably not investigate the crime at more than a superficial level.

The clearance rate for property crimes isn't quite as bad as I thought: https://www.statista.com/statistics/194213/crime-clearance-r...

Law enforcement in the US is primarily focused on clearing "moral" crimes or things that make their departments money. Things like murder, drug use, prostitution, and domestic violence are high targets because they are "easier" to police than things like theft. Some police departments are also funded by monies they can just take from people under "suspicion" that someone was going to commit a crime using civil asset forfeiture. Good luck ever getting that money back. Just watching a show like LivePD in the US you'll see that while there are a ton of absolutely amazing and dedicated law enforcement officers out there, there's also those who completely treat people like dirt and take every opportunity to lie or intimidate people into confessing to crimes.