Cases
Where fraud rules, controls, and evidence had to stand up
Illustrative fraud and AML scenarios from 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 engagement here applied the same discipline The engine now encodes — trace, reason, assure, certify, evidence. The engine is the record, made repeatable.
How it works →The same discipline has been applied to models, calculations, and automated decisions in other regulated settings — the wider record
From the record to the machine
These are the situations. The checks that came out of them 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 them is a body of automated checks over the records a firm already holds — each one reading a real population, reaching a documented conclusion, and refusing to reach one where the evidence is missing.
They are shown by invitation rather than published, because every population 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 estate.
Discuss a related situation
Each case here is the same standard holding under scrutiny — 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 where it can be made defensible.
Unsure where the rules stand? Try the free fraud-rule check