01
Fraud Risk Assessment
Identify relevant fraud typologies, assess inherent risk and control effectiveness, and produce a prioritised view of residual exposure.
Fraud risk management and fraud risk assessment for FinTech, payments and regulated businesses exposed to APP fraud, payment scams, identity abuse, account takeover, internal fraud and partner-related fraud — from risk assessment and governance to control design and remediation.
From enterprise fraud-risk assessment and typology mapping to control frameworks, incident remediation and fraud/AML interfaces — built around how the product, customer journey and transaction flow actually work.
The scope can be narrow — one payment or identity-fraud problem — or cover the wider fraud-risk framework. Each engagement starts with the business model, transaction flow, customer journey, known losses or incidents, and the controls already in place.
Identify relevant fraud typologies, assess inherent risk and control effectiveness, and produce a prioritised view of residual exposure.
Define ownership, decision rights, prevention and detection responsibilities, escalation, management information and oversight.
Review fraud exposure across payment journeys, including APP scams, social engineering, mule activity and transaction-control hand-offs.
Assess onboarding, authentication, account recovery, high-risk profile changes and governance around identity and access signals.
Review employee, contractor and privileged-access risks, segregation of duties, approvals, overrides and escalation mechanisms.
Assess what failed after a material incident, identify root causes and translate lessons into accountable corrective actions and evidence.
Align shared data, monitoring, case-management and escalation points while keeping fraud and AML/CFT risk ownership distinct.
Review fraud-control dependencies on PSPs, processors, merchants, vendors and technology providers, including oversight and escalation.
Depending on scope: fraud-risk assessment, typology map, control inventory, fraud-risk register, governance model, policy and procedure requirements, remediation roadmap, management reporting framework and implementation evidence plan.
Generic anti-fraud wording is not enough. The useful question is which fraud patterns are relevant to the product and transaction architecture — and where a control should prevent, detect, interrupt or escalate them.
Authorised payments induced through impersonation, manipulation or deception.
Stolen, synthetic or manipulated identities used to create or control accounts.
Compromise of customer credentials, devices, sessions or recovery processes.
Accounts or wallets used to receive, move or cash out fraud proceeds.
Misappropriation, collusion, insider facilitation, data abuse or control override.
Fraud arising through merchants, agents, distributors, affiliates or embedded partners.
Wallet compromise, scam flows, account abuse and fraud-linked crypto movement.
Exploitation of manual exceptions, weak approvals, operational gaps and control workarounds.
Fraud and AML/CFT can share customer data, transaction monitoring, case-management infrastructure and escalation pathways. They should still be assessed as separate risk disciplines.
Focuses on how the business, its customers or its payment and account processes can be deceived, manipulated or abused.
Focuses on whether the business is being used to launder criminal proceeds, finance terrorism or facilitate related prohibited activity.
A focused sequence keeps the work practical. The aim is not to create another policy layer, but to identify where material fraud risk sits and what control, ownership or evidence needs to change.
Products, customers, payment and asset flows, channels, fraud events, third parties and current controls.
Relevant typologies, inherent risk, existing controls, failure points and residual exposure.
Governance, prevention, detection, escalation, procedures, requirements and management evidence.
Actions, owners, milestones, testing expectations, implementation evidence and handover.
LEX ARTA focuses on regulatory, compliance, governance and control aspects of fraud risk. Where specialist technical, forensic or reserved legal work is required, that work is separately scoped and coordinated with appropriately qualified providers.
Each engagement is scoped to the business model, products, transaction flows, jurisdictions, relevant fraud typologies, existing control maturity and required deliverables. A defined scope, timeline and professional fee are agreed before work begins.
Fraud risk often touches other regulatory disciplines. Those services remain separate where the client needs a deeper regulatory, AML/CFT, ICT or supervisory-response engagement.
Fraud risk is reviewed through the operating model, customer journey, payment or asset flow and the control environment — with clear separation between fraud, AML/CFT, investigations and technical-security disciplines.
Fraud focuses on deception, payment abuse, identity fraud, account takeover, internal misconduct and related losses. AML/CFT focuses on the risk that a business is used for money laundering, terrorist financing or related prohibited activity. The two frameworks can share data and controls but should retain separate risk ownership and analysis.
The scope is tailored to the operating model and may cover payment fraud, APP and social-engineering scams, identity fraud, account takeover, mule activity, internal fraud, merchant or partner abuse, third-party dependencies and the effectiveness of prevention, detection, escalation and response controls.
Yes. A focused review can assess fraud exposure across payment and customer journeys, control ownership, authentication and high-risk events, escalation rules, operational hand-offs, management information and interfaces with AML/CFT and payment-regulatory requirements.
The core service is fraud risk, governance, control and remediation advisory rather than forensic investigation or litigation support. Where an incident has occurred, LEX ARTA can review control failure, governance, remediation and regulatory implications and coordinate specialist forensic or legal providers where required.
Not as a standard advisory scope. LEX ARTA can define governance, control requirements, decision frameworks, oversight and implementation expectations. Fraud-engine configuration, model tuning, cybersecurity work and specialist technical implementation are separately scoped where required.
Engagements are scope-based. The fee depends on the business model, products, transaction flows, jurisdictions, fraud typologies, existing controls, data and evidence available, and the required assessment, design or remediation deliverables. Scope, timing and fees are agreed before work begins.
Tell us the business model, product, fraud concern or recent incident. The first step is to identify the material fraud typologies, existing control environment and the most useful assessment or remediation scope.
BOOK A CONSULTATION
Share the business context, jurisdiction and support you need. We will reply with a practical next step.