For Fraud & Risk
Lower fraud loss without pushing conversion down — the trade every fraud team is asked to stop making.
What you receive
- Fraud loss and false-positive reporting
- Rules you own and can tune
- Mule and network analysis
- Chargeback representment evidence
When you need this
Three situations that call for it. If none of them is yours, it probably is not the right spend.
Chargebacks are creeping towards the cap
Scheme monitoring programmes trigger on a ratio, not on a loss figure, and the remedies they impose cost more than the fraud did. Work starts by separating chargebacks that are genuinely fraud from service disputes wearing a fraud reason code.
Your rules engine is a museum nobody edits
Every rule was written after a specific bad week and none were ever retired, so good customers now pay the false-positive bill and nobody can say which rule turned them away. Rules are measured one at a time, and the ones earning nothing come out.
A partner bank has flagged mule activity
Inbound mule funds make you the last hop before a police request, and account-level rules cannot see a network. Graph analysis across shared devices, recycled details and timing between accounts names the cluster instead of closing one account at a time.
How it runs
Where you actually are
A working session to establish what is already in place and what your regulator, your auditor or your board is going to ask for. Usually the gap is narrower than feared and differently shaped.
What the obligation really requires
We separate what the text mandates from what a consultancy has told you it mandates. Several of the controls sold against these regimes are not required by them.
A scoped programme
The specific modules and engagements that close the gap, sequenced by what your deadline is and what depends on what — not by what is easiest to sell you.
Evidence, not a gap report
The output is the artefact your assessor accepts: test results, control evidence and a record of what changed. A document describing your gaps is not evidence that you closed them.
No lock-in
Scoping costs nothing and carries no obligation. If the answer is that you do not need this, that is a legitimate outcome of the call.
Who turns up
The engineer on your scoping call is on the delivery team. We do not hand you to a different group after signature.
Scope
What this does not cover
We do not underwrite fraud losses, and we do not own the decline decision — the rules and the thresholds stay under your name, because the cost of a wrong decline is yours to carry.
Money laundering and payment fraud share tooling and very little else — sanctions screening, suspicious activity reporting and the AML programme itself belong to compliance, and a mule cluster we name still has to reach them through your own process.
Acquiring relationships, scheme registration and choice of payment provider are commercial decisions we do not make for you.
- PSD2 RTS (EU) 2018/389 Art. 18
- Art. 18 allows the TRA exemption only while the payment service provider's fraud rate stays at or below the reference rate for that value band.
- EBA Guidelines EBA/GL/2018/05
- Payment service providers must report fraud data to competent authorities, broken down by instrument and authentication method.
- GDPR Art. 22
- Solely automated decisions with significant effect are prohibited unless an exception applies, and where one does the customer can demand human intervention, put their case and contest the outcome. The right to be told the logic behind it sits in Articles 13 to 15.
If the scope is wrong
Tell us on the call. Re-scoping before we start costs nothing; discovering it at the readout costs you the engagement.
Questions
The ones we are actually asked.
Do you replace the fraud tooling we already run?
Usually not, and often it should not be replaced — two scores disagreeing is more informative than one score nobody questions. What we will not do is operate a model your own team is forbidden to inspect.
Will fraud losses fall in the first quarter?
We will not quote a figure and would not believe one quoted to us. The false-positive side moves quickly, because a retired rule changes the decline rate the same day, while fraud loss moves at the speed of your chargeback cycle.
Can a decline be explained to the customer?
Each decision carries the rule and the reason that produced it, which is what a complaint handler, a regulator and an ombudsman all ask for. A score on its own is not an explanation and we do not present it as one.
See what an attacker sees
We map your external attack surface the way an adversary does — exposed assets, leaked credentials, impersonation domains. No agent, no access, no cost.
30 min
A scoping call, with an engineer rather than a sales rep.
What it costs
Nothing, and there is no sequence afterwards. If we are not the right fit we will say so and suggest who is.
Under attack now?
Do not use this form. The hotline is answered around the clock and reaches a duty analyst directly.