VIRTICUSRequest Assessment
Fraud & AML rule defensibility

Wedesign,build,andproveyourfraudrules.

FCA-regulated firms must show their fraud and AML controls would stand up to the regulator, the Ombudsman, or a court. We design, build, and tune your detection rules — and prove, rule by rule, that they hold up — in a regulator-ready pack. Built on years writing these rules inside a global bank. We start where it bites hardest: fraud and AML.

Rule defensibility

See which fraud rules you could not defend to the FCA, the Ombudsman, or a court.

Coverage gaps

Find the typologies your rules miss — APP scams, AML, card, and mule fraud.

Reproducible evidence

Consistent, traceable output — the same result every time, not a black box.

Live Assessment

Fraud Rule Defensibility Scorecard

Independent

Rule rationale

Documented and mapped to obligation

APP scam coverage

Gap flagged — 3 typologies uncovered

Owner & review

Owner named — review overdue

Estate defensibility87%

A defensible rule carries a documented chain from typology to threshold to accountable owner.

Why firms trust the work

01·PROOF

All four domains

Rule-writing depth across APP scams, AML transaction monitoring, card fraud, and application/mule fraud — not one narrow lane.

02·PROOF

Built inside banks

Detection rules written and tuned at scale in live UK banking and payment environments, under regulatory scrutiny — not theory.

03·PROOF

Mapped to UK obligations

Every rule tied to what it implements — PSR APP reimbursement, the MLRs, FCA SYSC financial-crime, and Consumer Duty.

04·PROOF

Reproducible by design

The same inputs produce the same documented, traceable verdict — evidence a regulator, an ombudsman, or a court will accept.

Specialist technical capability · regulated finance

We design, build, and assure your controls.

From writing your fraud and AML detection rules to proving they hold up under scrutiny — end to end. Deep technical specialists who have sat inside the bank, not lawyers and not a software vendor. We lead with financial crime; the same rigour extends to AI decisions and cyber.

Financial Crime · Flagship

Live

Fraud & AML Rule Defensibility

APP-SCAM·AML-TM·CARD·APPLICATION·PSR-2024

Design, tune, and assure your fraud and AML detection rules — documented, tested, monitored, owned, and mapped to the regulation each implements, across APP scams, transaction monitoring, card, and application/mule fraud.

Rule-by-rule scorecardTypology coverage gapsRegulator-ready pack
Run the free fraud-rule checkExplore the service

No data, no signup — a verdict in minutes.

AI & Automated Decisions

Live

AI Governance & Compliance

Rigorous, documented control over the AI and automated decisions that affect customers, money, or operations — clear ownership, review, escalation, and deployment oversight management can stand behind.

Ownership mapReview controlsEscalation logic

Cybersecurity & Resilience

Live

Security & Operational Resilience

Evidence-forward, repeatable assurance for the controls that move money and protect customers — the same defensibility approach, applied to cyber and operational-resilience controls: documented, owned, tested, and mapped to the regulation each implements.

Control assuranceResilience mappingReproducible by design

Three points where fraud rules are tested

When your fraud rules have to defend themselves

Each of these moments is now tied to money — and each one turns on whether the rule was documented, tested, and defensible.

Moment 01

Before a reimbursement claim lands

Since mandatory APP-fraud reimbursement, a weak or undocumented detection rule is no longer just a control gap — it is a cost you carry.

We diagnose your fraud and AML rules against a defensibility scorecard and surface coverage gaps across recognised UK fraud typologies, before they are tested.

Pre-review exposure

Data lineageAt risk
Model oversightAt risk
Control evidencePartial
2 of 3 exposure areas unresolved before review

Moment 02

When the rule is challenged

The FCA, the Financial Ombudsman, or a court can ask you to show that a fraud rule was adequate, tested, owned, and mapped to the regulation it implements.

We establish whether each rule has documented rationale, monitoring, and change control — and where the evidence is missing.

Evidence chain

System decision log

Available

Override record

Incomplete

Expert witness analysis

Not commissioned

Moment 03

When you need to demonstrate control

Defensibility only holds if the rationale is documented, the rule is owned, and the output is reproducible — same inputs, identical traceable result.

We make that structure visible and challenge-ready — every assessment documented and repeatable — and hand you a regulator-ready pack.

Accountability trace

Business owner

Decision recorded

Governance owner

Review documented

Decision owner

Sign-off traceable

Business output

Defensible?

What we do

Prove your controls would stand up — by design, not by black box.

Pipeline Resolution24%

Ingress

Lineage

Model

Decision

Review

Data stream

Source integrity and lineage confirmed

Control lane

Exception rules and overrides inspected

Evidence lane

Decision record prepared for challenge

Decision Gate

Input completePending
Controls verifiedPending
Escalation mappedPending
Release defensiblePending

Review finding

The flow only clears when lineage, control evidence, and accountable release conditions align.

The illustration reads as a resolution sequence: signals enter, controls are tested, evidence accumulates, and the decision gate clears only when the chain is defensible.

Governance

When a decision is challenged, can you trace it?

Customers, regulators, and auditors may ask you to explain any automated decision your business made. Good governance means each question has a clear answer before it is asked.

Named owners

Every decision point has a documented, accountable person.

Traceable decisions

The path from data input to business outcome is reviewable.

Evidence-ready

Records exist in the form that regulators and auditors can use.

Decision challenged

Credit decision #REF-4471 — Declined

Referred by compliance team · Tracing accountability chain

Governance questionAnswer
1

Accountable owner

Pending
2

Approval pathway

Pending
3

Data source

Pending
4

Decision rationale

Pending
5

Override record

Pending
Defensibility score

Tracing 0 of 5 governance controls…

How it works

A three-step operating sequence

The process is straightforward. Each step replaces uncertainty with a clear picture of where your risk sits and what to do about it.

01

Situation framing

We identify the system, the decision path, the accountable audience, and the timing pressure.

Scope map

System & decision path
Accountable audience
Timing & pressure
Scope confirmed
02

Independent examination

Evidence, system behaviour, governance controls, and decision logic are reviewed without ownership conflict.

Signal isolation

Data integrityVerified
Control logicFlagged
Decision trailTraced
Ownership conflictClear
03

Actionable reporting

Findings are presented in plain language, with enough technical depth to satisfy regulators, legal advisers, or auditors.

Decision brief

Management
Regulator
Legal
Plain language · Technical depth preserved

Selected cases

Work where decisions had consequences

AI is simply a form of automated system. Whether called a model, rule, or tool — if it produces outputs people rely on, it creates risk. Regulatory and legal obligations apply in the same way, regardless of the label.

Wondering how your own fraud rules would hold up?

Run the free defensibility check →

What we see in practice

Risk patterns from real situations

See all patterns →

Get in touch

See how defensible your fraud rules are today

Start with the free, self-serve defensibility check — an estate scorecard plus a single-rule mini-check. No data heavy lifting. Or book a confidential briefing and Virticus will identify the right posture quickly.