Home » News » Navigating the Storm: Understanding the Evolving Threat of Financial Fraud

Navigating the Storm: Understanding the Evolving Threat of Financial Fraud


June 3, 2024 | Originally published on Medium

The financial sector is under constant threat from a spectrum of fraudulent activities, making the task of fraud detection and prevention a critical concern. With the majority of transactions being genuine, fraud presents a unique challenge as it operates as the exception rather than the rule. Yet, its impact is far from negligible, inflicting significant losses across banks, investment firms, lenders, insurance firms, and other financial institutions. This context demands not only advanced approaches to fraud detection mechanisms, but also a nuanced understanding of how these systems operate and the strategic incorporation of expert knowledge to navigate the complexities of the fraud landscape.

As technologies of e-commerce and the digital economy become more sophisticated, methods employed in fraudulent activities are getting more advanced. This, in turn, creates a necessity for financial institutions to develop and employ cutting-edge Fraud Detection Systems (FDS) that are also transparent. These systems, often powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML), are tasked with identifying fraudulent activities in an environment where they are vastly outnumbered by legitimate transactions. The intricacy of fraud detection lies in the need to be both precise and swift, catching fraudulent activities without impeding the flow of genuine transactions. For instance, false positives are quite costly, as such inaccuracies severely impact customers’ experience. This balancing act requires a combination of advanced technology and human expertise to adapt to the ever-evolving tactics of fraudsters.

Given the sophisticated nature of modern fraud, it is essential to approach fraud detection with a system that integrates both AI-driven models and the discerning eyes of human experts. This combination enables the continuous evolution of fraud detection strategies, ensuring they remain effective against new and emerging threats. Furthermore, the construction of fraud detection systems and the methodologies employed must be carefully curated to ensure they are robust enough to cope with the dynamic and adaptive nature of financial fraud, all while maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the financial system.

The Front Lines of Fraud: A Global Overview of Financial Vulnerabilities

Facing an intensifying fraud landscape that spans globally, the financial industry is presented with both dynamic and persistent challenges. This escalation is partly fueled by the exponential growth and proliferation of e-commerce. Recent studies highlight North America as the epicenter of this issue, accounting for 42% of the world’s fraud value, followed by Europe at 26% (1). In the United States, lending firms report an uptick in fraudulent transactions, with mid to large-sized firms bearing the brunt of these activities, as they’ve seen a higher volume of fraud per month. Additionally, a 2023 study revealed that about two-thirds of financial firms in the U.S. have observed an overall rise in fraudulent activities by at least 6% over the course of a year. (2).

Just in 2023, the captured financial damages for merchants, particularly in e-commerce and finance, were estimated at $38 billion in losses. Even more concerning is the forecasted $362 billion merchants will lose by 2027(3). Some suggest that one of the primary risk factors fueling this trend is the immense volume of data breaches enabling the widespread availability of stolen credit card information across regions (4). In addition, there is growing evidence that fraudsters are developing and distributing more advanced tools for malicious activities, including leveraging Generative AI’s capabilities (5).

In the financial sector fraud is not monolithic; it manifests in various forms, with mobile transaction fraud, identity theft, and scams, identified as the fastest-growing threats (2). Beyond the direct financial losses inflicted by fraudsters, broader challenges such as damaged trust between financial institutions and their customers lead to operational delays and the need for additional verification measures. This erosion of trust, coupled with harm to brand reputation, increases customer churn and typically diminishes conversion rates.

Scams are prevalent and rank high at all the stages of the customer journey. A notable and increasingly common type of fraud is the creation of fraudulent synthetic identities. This type of fraud uses a real person’s stolen Social Security number (SSN) while a name and other personal information are made up. Interestingly, friendly fraud, also known as a chargeback fraud, is one of the top concerns in the customer journey (2). This type of fraud happens when a cardholder disputes a charge on their transaction statement as fraudulent, initiating the chargeback process, even though the purchase was actually made by them or someone in their household (6).

Given this context, it is clear that the struggle against financial fraud is akin to a constant state of war; a challenge that will persist and evolve, demanding relentless effort and innovation to combat and mitigate its effects.

Decoding Deception: The Complex World of Fraud Detection Modeling

Fraud Detection Systems, including those that use data & AI, face various challenges when it comes to detecting malicious activities. Among these challenges, here are a common few(7):

  1. The first hurdle is the relative rarity of fraud when juxtaposed with legitimate operations, which creates a severe imbalance in datasets and skews model precision. Addressing this issue requires a shift from the traditional approach to fraud identification, particularly when the data is unbalanced.
  2. The second challenge lies in the evolving nature of fraud, with fraudsters constantly refining their tactics to blend in with legitimate customer behavior. This demands AI systems to be flexible and quick in adapting to new fraud patterns. Financial institutions face the delicate task of balancing the costs and frequency of updating these models to combat fraudsters’ evolving strategies. Leveraging expert knowledge can address this challenge by incorporating emerging trends not yet evident in data and making cost-effective adjustments to improve the models’ accuracy.
  3. The third challenge involves accurately identifying transactions as fraudulent, a task made difficult by delayed recognition or complete oversight of fraudulent activity. When fraud is undetected, feeding incorrect or incomplete data back into a system can further perpetuate inaccuracies, diminishing the overall precision of the model and letting fraud go unnoticed. To tackle this issue, especially considering the rapid pace at which fraudulent transactions occur, deploying second look models can be highly effective. These models reassess potential fraud cases, guiding subsequent actions and enhancing fraud prevention strategies for future instances.
  4. Finally, The incorporation of interpretability in fraud detection systems is crucial. When an AI-driven system flags an alert, it triggers the need for a thorough investigation, requiring clear justification of the alert for those doing the investigating. This situation demands either inherently interpretable models or the creation of post-hoc procedures that can explain the decisions of more complex, black box models. In critical areas such as finance, having interpretability embedded within the system significantly enhances the potential to refine detection strategies and improve the accuracy of results.

Collectively, these challenges underscore the complexity of fraud detection in the modern financial landscape, where AI must be both sophisticated and transparent. Systems must not only be adept at detecting and adapting to the nuanced and evolving nature of fraud, but also capable of explaining their reasoning in a manner that supports human decision-making processes. The balance between predictive prowess and the need for descriptive clarity is not just a technicality but a core facet of fostering trust and efficacy in AI-driven fraud detection systems.

Rising Above the Fraud Tide: Innovative Approaches in Financial Defense

In the United States, financial organizations wrestle with the dual objectives of mitigating evolving fraud risks and maintaining an optimal customer experience. Their primary concern being their capacity to keep an eye on and defend against progressively sophisticated transaction fraud. This challenge is exacerbated by new transaction methods, with lenders distinctly reporting a significant struggle in managing and preventing fraud (2). In response, U.S. financial institutions are increasingly focused on leveraging improved digital identity verification processes like two-factor authentication. By introducing some friction, they aim to prevent fraud across online and mobile channels. Additionally, key strategies include educating both customers and staff about security risks and the early signs of scams (8, 9).

Concurrently, there is a growing reliance on third-party data and insights, especially among U.S. credit lenders and investment firms. These external sources offer vast data pools and advanced analytical capabilities that many financial institutions may not internally possess and can bolster their risk assessment efforts (2). However, accessing third-party data incurs costs, and the optimal strategy involves blending various data sources and adopting innovative approaches to address new and evolving fraud. Nonetheless, there is a crucial need for caution in how this data is integrated and applied within AI systems, ensuring that its use remains both effective and ethically sound. For this, it is also essential to incorporate interpretability and understand how the data is processed for effective evaluation.

Synergy in Security: Blending Human Expertise with AI in Fraud Detection

The synthesis of human expertise and advanced technology forms the backbone of effective defense mechanisms. As financial operations increasingly lean on innovative technologies for enhanced efficiency and accuracy, the concept of Human-Machine Teaming (HMT) gains prominence, highlighting the collaborative efforts where human insight and machine intelligence intersect to achieve common objectives (10).

This collaboration is crucial, particularly in fraud detection systems, where expert knowledge is essential not only for the initial operation but also for keeping pace with rapidly evolving fraud trends that may not yet be evident in the dataHuman experts play a pivotal role in this dynamic environment, possessing the unique ability to effectively tweak and adjust the internal mechanisms of interpretable AI systems. Their understanding of the nuances of fraud allows implementation of strategic modifications that address new and emerging threats, ensuring the system’s robustness and accuracy are continually verified. This ongoing human intervention is key to adapting to the ever-changing landscape of financial fraud, where the agility and intuition of human experts complement the analytical capacity of AI and ML models, creating a fortified defense against fraudulent activities.

Inside the Ecosystem of Financial Fraud Detection

Combating fraud employs various approaches, with the integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) being a notably popular method for achieving greater efficiency and robustness. The construction and architecture of Fraud Detection Systems is critical, as they must swiftly adapt to the dynamic landscape of fraud detection. Crucially, the operation of modern FDS systems is characterized by a comprehensive operational cycle that incorporates automation at various stages, reflecting the urgency required in transaction approval processes.

The journey of a transaction through an FDS system begins at the point of initiation, where transaction data is swiftly funneled into the initial fraud detection model for immediate evaluation. Given the time-sensitive nature of transaction approvals–which often occurs in seconds–this evaluation process is predominantly automated. Although some literature suggests the possibility of human intervention at this stage, the limited time frame generally precludes effective human evaluation. If a transaction is flagged as non-fraudulent, it swiftly proceeds to approval, thereby initiating the necessary actions, such as money transfers. Conversely, transactions flagged for potential fraud trigger a set of responsive actions aimed at preventing the fraudulent activity both in the short term, such as reversing the transaction, and in the long term, such as initiating a criminal investigation.

A pivotal element in the FDS cycle is the second look model. This crucial step entails a re-evaluation of transactions post-approval, serving as both a safeguard and a learning mechanism. Transactions might undergo additional review immediately after approval or at a later stage, prompting evaluators to reconsider, “Should we have approved this?”. This can be executed manually by financial experts or automatically for reassessment. This process not only acts as an additional layer of protection by identifying transactions that, while approved, may still be fraudulent; but also contributes significantly to the system’s learning, providing valuable insights that refine the fraud detection model for future transactions.

As the cycle progresses, the insights garnered from both successful and unsuccessful fraud detection episodes are meticulously analyzed during the oversight phase. This stage involves a thorough review of the FDS’s performance, including the consideration of chargebacks (fraud instances that were initially missed but later identified). Such analysis offers a rich source of data, revealing the types of fraud that employ novel techniques to bypass detection measures, and thereby enhancing the system’s future accuracy and effectiveness.

Each component of the FDS system, from the initial fraud detection model to the oversight and review mechanisms, plays a critical role in the overarching process. The integration of these components ensures a dynamic and responsive system capable of adapting to new challenges and methodologies in fraud detection. The second look model, in particular, underscores the importance of continuous evaluation and adaptation, serving as a testament to the complex, iterative nature of effective fraud management in the financial sector.

Fortifying Finances: A New Generation of Strategies for Mitigating Fraud Based on Probabilistic Rules

Among the myriad of approaches, frameworks based on probabilistic rules are considered the ultimate tools due to their flexibility, ability to leverage expert insight and external data, capacity for combining knowledge bases, and adaptability (11). These frameworks function based on a set of predefined rules, which allow for precise tweaking and adjustment of outputs based on varying confidence levels. Such granularity in control is crucial for refining the detection process and ensuring a tailored response to diverse fraud scenarios. In these rule-based models, rules may be derived from data or directly introduced by experts.

A critical evaluation by human experts can provide an additional layer of verification, where these experts reassess crucial cases or implement modifications to the system. This method facilitates oversight, enabling experts to fine-tune existing rules or devise new ones to preempt future, yet undetected, threats. For example, in the aftermath of natural disasters, new scams related to such events emerge (12, 13) and may not be immediately detected by current models. Human experts, understanding the broader context, can adjust the system appropriately. The importance of interpretability and explainability in this context is often underestimated. Interpretable models equip financial specialists with the ability to comprehend the logic behind decisions made by the Fraud Detection Systems, providing insights into the operational logic of AI models and the potential for necessary adjustments. This clarity is essential not only for confirming the accuracy of decisions, but also for pinpointing areas that need enhancement, particularly in response to rapid environmental changes.

The adaptability of rule-based systems extends beyond simple adjustments within a specific context; it also supports the transfer of knowledge across different scenarios. For instance, a fraud detection model that is effective in one country can be recalibrated for another by reassessing which rules are still applicable, discarding those that are not, and introducing new ones to identify emerging patterns. This process of knowledge transfer and system retraining is crucial for maintaining a robust, context-sensitive model. It is also cost-effective: when businesses expand, they do not need to develop a new model from scratch for each new market. Furthermore, the combination of knowledge bases provides possibilities to develop more advanced detection structures. Adding insight from third-party data is easy to incorporate into such systems. The approach underscores the portability and scalability of rule-based models, contrasted with the rigidity often found in artificial neural networks (ANNs). The latter poses challenges in combining and adapting to new contexts, whereas rule-based frameworks can easily incorporate rules from extensive repositories, enabling organizations to construct robust detection mechanisms from the ground up.

Thanks to its interpretable and modular architecture, which assembles relevant rules for specific tasks, the availability of rule repositories offers a competitive advantage, particularly for emerging businesses. New companies can utilize these repositories to build their models, assembling an initial rule set like building blocks to provide a solid foundation that can be expanded and customized over time. For instance, when a developing business adopts a model based on probabilistic rules, it does not have to start from scratch but can utilize existing rules from the repository, drawing on the experiences and use cases where those rules were successfully applied.

Probabilistic rule-based frameworks stand out for their flexibility, adaptability, and ability to integrate expert insights with extensive data sources. By incorporating human expertise directly into the loop and utilizing a modular approach to system design, these frameworks offer a robust solution to fraud detection that is not only effective across various contexts, but also scalable as business needs evolve. The continuous refinement and adaptation of these systems, guided by both experienced judgment and innovative technology, ensure that organizations can effectively respond to emerging threats and maintain integrity within their operational environments now and in the future.

Bibliography:

  1. Juniper Research Ltd. (2022, October). eCommerce Losses to Online Payment Fraud to Exceed $48 Billion Globally in 2023. Juniper Research. https://www.juniperresearch.com/press/ecommerce-losses-online-payment-fraud-48bn
  2. LexisNexis Risk Solutions. (2023). The True Cost of FraudTM Study. LexisNexis Risk Solutions. https://risk.lexisnexis.com/insights-resources/research/us-ca-true-cost-of-fraud-study
  3. Juniper Research Ltd. (2023). Online Payment Fraud: Market Forecasts, Emerging Threats & Segment Analysis 2023–2028. Juniper Research. https://www.juniperresearch.com/research/fintech-payments/fraud-identity/online-payment-fraud-research-report/
  4. Mastercard. (2023). Ecommerce fraud trends and statistics merchants need to know in 2024. Mastercard Payment and Cybersecurity Solutions. https://b2b.mastercard.com/news-and-insights/blog/ecommerce-fraud-trends-and-statistics-merchants-need-to-know-in-2024/
  5. McKee, J. (2024). Payments in 2024: 5 predictions for the Year Ahead. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jordanmckee/2024/01/15/payments-in-2024-five-predictions-for-the-year-ahead/
  6. Mastercard. (2022). What is friendly fraud?. Mastercard Payment and Cybersecurity Solutions. https://b2b.mastercard.com/news-and-insights/blog/what-is-friendly-fraud/
  7. Nesvijevskaia, A., Ouillade, S., Guilmin, P., & Zucker, J.-D. (2021). The accuracy versus interpretability trade-off in fraud detection model. Data & Policy3https://doi.org/10.1017/dap.2021.3
  8. FasterCapital. (n.d.). Educating staff on fraud awareness and prevention. FasterCapital. https://fastercapital.com/topics/educating-staff-on-fraud-awareness-and-prevention.html
  9. SQN Banking Systems. (n.d.). How to educate your customers about bank fraud. SQN Banking Systems. https://sqnbankingsystems.com/blog/how-to-educate-your-customers-about-bank-fraud/
  10. Henry, K. E., Kornfield, R., Sridharan, A., Linton, R. C., Groh, C., Wang, T., Wu, A., Mutlu, B., & Saria, S. (2022). Human–machine teaming is key to AI adoption: Clinicians’ experiences with a deployed machine learning system. Npj Digital Medicine5(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-022-00597-7
  11. Schaefer, T. (2023). In need for both accuracy and interpretability? give probabilistic rules a try. Medium. https://medium.com/stratyfyai/in-need-for-both-accuracy-and-interpretability-give-probabilistic-rules-a-try-6713a74c7776
  12. Taodang, D., & Gundur, R. V. (2022). How frauds in times of crisis target people. Victims & Offenders18(5), 889–914. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2022.2043968
  13. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (2017). Advisory to Financial Institutions Regarding Disaster-Related Fraud. United States Department of Treasury. https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/advisory/2017-10-31/FinCEN%20Advisory%20FIN-2017-A007-508%20Compliant.pdf