Fraud Evidence for Banks
Rule of Record alerts the bank when a payment or account change no longer matches what the customer approved, while the bank can still act. It works beside the systems your bank already runs. The bank makes every final decision.
AI-enabled U.S. fraud losses are projected to grow 32% a year
Deloitte projects $40 billion by 2027. The FBI reported $20.877 billion in internet crime losses in 2025.
Sources: Deloitte Center for Financial Services and the FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center.
One connected record before the bank pays
A payment request sits in one system. A customer's approval sits in another. The final account details and the bank's decision each live somewhere else too, handled by different teams. Nothing is broken in any single one of those systems. The problem is what happens between them: a mismatch that started in one system can sit there, undetected, until after the bank has already released the funds.
That gap shows up as a real cost. Fraud teams reconstruct what happened after the money is already gone, working across systems that were never built to talk to each other. Banks protect against fraud at login. They protect against it during the transaction too. Then comes the final release, and no single record confirms the last details still match what the customer actually approved. When a customer disputes a payment, or a regulator asks how a decision was made, the record is scattered across teams instead of sitting in one place.
Rule of Record gives the bank a clear finding to review before money moves and one record to examine afterward. The bank keeps control of the decision.
A real customer login does not mean the final payment is safe
A payment can pass every login check and still be wrong. Those checks confirm who is asking. They do not, by themselves, show whether payment details changed after the customer gave approval and before the bank sent the funds.
A customer authorizes a $48,200 wire to an account ending 4421. By the time the payment is prepared, the account on file reads 8847, close enough not to catch at a glance. The login was real. The approval was real. But the payment about to go out is not the one the customer authorized.
A fraud alert is not the full answer
After an alert, teams still have to search across systems for the request, approval, recipient, and release records. They need those facts to act. If they can only connect them after the funds are sent, the bank and customer must respond to a loss that has already happened.
Alert created
A fraud tool flags suspicious activity for review.
Records opened
Teams locate the request, approval, recipient, and release records.
Facts connected
The bank compares the records to confirm what changed.
Release already happened
If confirmation comes after release, the bank and customer are responding to a completed loss.
Fraud tools answer different questions
Banks already use tools to check logins, score risk, and manage cases. Each supports a part of fraud review. Rule of Record adds a focused check: do the final payment details still match what the customer approved?
| Control | Question | Output | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication | Is this person allowed in? | Pass, challenge, or deny | At access |
| Risk scoring and behavioral analytics | Does this activity look suspicious? | Risk score or alert | Before or during the action |
| Case management | How should this alert be investigated? | Case, workflow, and disposition | During or after review |
| Rule of Record | Do the final details match what was authorized? | Changed field, decision owner, and connected receipt | Before release, when the workflow allows |
Category descriptions reflect public product pages from Visa, BioCatch, and NICE Actimize.
Every fraud decision leaves a tamper-evident record
Rule of Record keeps the request, the check, the bank's decision, and the result in one record. A customer may dispute a payment. An examiner may ask about a call. The bank can use the record to show what happened and why.
Rule of Record works from clear rules, not an unexplained AI decision. The bank can review any result later and see why it came out that way.
Bank-controlled$48,200 wire to Northline Supply
SavedRecipient no longer matches what the customer authorized
ChangedAuthorized employee reviews the mismatch
ReviewPayment stays in the bank's review queue
PendingThe record does not move money or replace the bank's decision. The bank decides.
See what the bank getsUse your existing systems
Rule of Record works beside existing bank systems without replacing them, while the bank keeps every final decision.
- 01Connect approved data
Start with the records the bank approves for evaluation.
- 02Run beside the current process
Keep the live workflow as it is while the bank sees the results.
- 03Return one decision record
Give authorized teams one decision record. The bank decides.
The software is ready for a bank to evaluate. Before live use, the bank must finish its security, legal, vendor, and production reviews. There is no named bank customer or completed live deployment today.
Review security and deploymentWire fraud first
The first evaluation focuses on wire fraud. The bank sees when a wire it plans to send no longer matches what the customer approved. Pilot results will guide any move into identity, account, card, or dispute decisions. Expansion depends on that evidence.
What would a 1% reduction equal?
Illustrative arithmetic only. This is not a Rule of Record prevention forecast.
Bring one wire workflow and the bank's own loss data. We will replace the illustrative example above with agreed measures.
Request a demo or pilotRead the wire fraud prevention guide Source: FBI IC3 2025 Annual Report