Financial crime cases
Where fraud rules, controls, and evidence had to stand up
Illustrative fraud and AML scenarios, anonymised and reconstructed from work in regulated firms where the cost of getting a detection rule wrong was high. Each shows where a rule had to be evidenced, not just explained, to a regulator, the Financial Ombudsman, or a court.
Every case here is set out against the same five steps (Discovery, Design, Build, Deploy & test, Assure & hand over). They are now the way we build, so the record behind the work can be reproduced, not just described.
How we build →The same discipline has been applied to models, calculations, and automated decisions in other regulated settings — the full record
From the cases to the automations
These are the situations. Checks that came out of work like this are built and running.
Every case above was work that had to survive being read by somebody with a reason to doubt it. What came out of that work is a body of automated checks over the records a firm already holds — each one reading those records, reaching a documented conclusion, and refusing to reach one where the evidence is missing.
They are shown by invitation rather than published, because every example in them is constructed and a synthetic case read out of context reads as a real one. Ask, and you will be walked through the ones that match your rules.
Discuss your situation
Each case here is the same standard holding under scrutiny — your fraud and AML rules can hold too
A short discussion is usually enough to determine whether the issue is one of rule design, control, evidence, or a combination of the three — and what it would take to put right.
Unsure where the rules stand? Run the free fraud-rule check