Fraud is becoming a growth lever for financial institutions

At a glance

What this is: Alloy's fraud report says fraud pressure is steady, more channel-shifted, and increasingly tied to growth decisions across financial institutions and fintechs.

Why it matters: IAM, fraud, and identity teams need to treat fraud prevention as an operating control that shapes access, transaction limits, and customer trust rather than a back-office loss function.

By the numbers:

• 67% of respondents reported an increase in fraud attempts over the past year.
• 71% of respondents said that fraud most commonly occurred in online or mobile banking channels.
• 92% of financial decision-makers say fraud prevention efforts help grow their business.

Context

Fraud governance is no longer just about stopping losses at the point of attack. It now sits inside product strategy, customer retention, and channel expansion, especially where institutions use identity checks, risk scoring, and transaction controls to decide what a customer can do.

The report points to a market that has moved past crisis response and into operational adaptation. That matters for fraud, but it also matters for identity programmes because access, verification, and step-up controls increasingly shape how institutions balance growth and risk.

Key questions

Q: What breaks when fraud controls only cover digital channels?

A: Fraud simply shifts to the weakest remaining entry point, such as branches, contact centres, or ATMs, and the organisation mistakes displacement for improvement. Channel-only controls also hide the true pattern, because the same actor can move between touchpoints while the customer journey and case ownership stay fragmented.

Q: Why can first-party fraud be difficult to classify correctly?

A: Because the surface facts can look legitimate even when the underlying identity or behaviour is manipulated. Synthetic identities, hybrid schemes, and economic pressure can all produce cases that resemble true first-party abuse, so teams need stronger identity correlation before assigning the case type.

Q: How should fraud teams decide when to raise limits or expand channels?

A: They should link those decisions to measured trust, loss, and recovery signals rather than broad confidence in a control stack. If fraud controls are already being used to support business growth, the approval process should prove that the new exposure can be monitored and contained.

Q: How can organisations tell whether fraud prevention is actually supporting growth?

A: Look for whether stronger controls are reducing false friction while enabling safe expansion into higher-value products, faster payments, or new customer segments. If growth decisions still depend on manual exceptions and poor cross-channel visibility, the control is not yet operating as a growth enabler.

Technical breakdown

Why omnichannel fraud shifts break single-channel controls

Fraud controls fail when they are designed around one channel while attackers and fraud rings simply move to the next. Online, mobile, branch, contact centre, and ATM activity produce different signals, but the underlying risk is often the same pattern of account misuse or identity abuse. A strong programme treats fraud as a channel-agnostic problem with channel-specific detection logic, not as separate problems owned by separate teams. That requires shared telemetry, consistent case handling, and a clear view of how one control change in digital banking affects branch and contact-centre exposure. Read Fraud Prevention Guide for Digital Businesses.

Practical implication: Treat channel migration as an expected response and tune detection rules across all customer entry points, not just the digital front door.

How first-party fraud blurs into synthetic identity schemes

First-party fraud is hard to govern because the customer, the account, and the claimed identity all appear legitimate at the surface. The article notes that what looks like first-party fraud can actually hide synthetic identity or hybrid schemes, which means the wrong label can send an investigation down the wrong path. In practice, this is an identity assurance problem as much as a fraud problem. Teams need to correlate application data, behavioural signals, device history, and account activity to distinguish genuine customer distress from constructed or manipulated identity. Read Top 10 Online Fraud Attacks.

Practical implication: Classify disputed cases with stronger identity correlation so resource allocation follows the actual attack pattern, not the surface label.

Why fraud prevention now influences access and growth decisions

The most important shift in the report is that fraud prevention is becoming a growth control. Institutions are using stronger fraud detection to justify higher limits, faster payment rails, and expansion into new products or geographies. That changes governance because fraud teams are no longer only measuring loss reduction. They are effectively helping determine where trust can be extended and where it must be withheld. In identity terms, that means verification confidence and behavioural risk scores are becoming operational gates for business enablement, not just security checkpoints. See the Fraud and Cyber Convergence Guide.

Practical implication: Tie fraud metrics to business approvals so expansion decisions reflect measured risk rather than optimism.

Threat narrative

Attacker objective: The attacker wants to convert identity trust and channel inconsistency into scaled financial gain while avoiding timely detection.

1. Entry starts when fraudsters exploit digital, physical, or contact-centre touchpoints where controls are weaker or unevenly tuned.
2. Escalation follows when attackers scale attacks with generative tooling, synthetic identities, or blended first-party schemes that make detection harder.
3. Impact lands as financial loss, customer harm, and operational drag, while the institution is forced to change limits, controls, and customer recovery handling.

Breaches seen in the wild

• Zacks breach claim 2025: A hacker leaked 12 million Zacks accounts in 2025, claiming domain admin access in 2024; HIBP verified the data, Zacks has not confirmed.

Read and download The State of NHI & AI Agent Breach Report 2026, covering 200+ breaches impacting Non-Human Identities including AI Agents.

NHI Mgmt Group analysis

Fraud governance is becoming a trust-and-growth control, not a downstream loss function. The report shows institutions now use fraud controls to decide where they can safely expand products, channels, and payment speed. That changes the governance question from loss containment to trust calibration, which is why fraud programmes and identity programmes are converging. Practitioners should treat fraud policy as part of business enablement, not only response.

Omnichannel fraud exposes the weakness of channel-specific security ownership. When fraud moves from one channel to another, isolated teams can mistake containment for success. The underlying issue is governance fragmentation: the controls, telemetry, and case handling do not move as quickly as the attackers do. Fraud and cyber convergence is becoming operationally necessary where identity signals and fraud signals overlap. Practitioners should organise detection around the customer journey, not the channel silo.

First-party fraud is often an identity classification problem disguised as a fraud problem. The report's warning about synthetic and hybrid schemes matters because misclassification drives bad resourcing and weak remediation. If teams cannot tell whether they are seeing genuine first-party misuse or a constructed identity pattern, they will tune controls to the wrong threat. Practitioners should use richer identity correlation before deciding what case type they are actually handling.

Fraud prevention is now part of customer trust architecture. The report links scam prevention to retention, goodwill credits, and customer loyalty, which means identity and fraud teams now influence revenue protection as well as loss reduction. That raises the bar for evidence, not just policy. Practitioners should measure fraud controls by how well they preserve safe customer action, not merely by how many cases they close.

From our research library:

• Nearly 60% of companies reported that fraud losses were still increasing in 2025.

What this signals

Omnichannel drift is the operational risk fraud teams should watch most closely. As institutions harden one entry point, attackers frequently redirect effort to the next weakest channel or process. That means the programme signal is not just attack volume, but where the volume moves after a control change and whether case handling moves with it.

Identity assurance is becoming the constraint on safe business acceleration. Financial institutions want faster payments, higher limits, and broader reach, but those decisions now depend on how well identity and fraud signals can justify trust in real time. The practical test is whether the programme can extend confidence without creating blind spots in recovery or investigation.

For practitioners

• Strengthen omnichannel detection models Align online, mobile, branch, ATM, and contact-centre signals so a control improvement in one channel does not simply displace fraud to another.
• Reclassify suspected first-party fraud with identity correlation Use application, device, behavioural, and account history together before deciding whether a case is true first-party fraud or a synthetic or hybrid scheme.
• Tie fraud controls to product and limits governance Require fraud sign-off before raising transaction limits, enabling faster payment rails, or expanding into new markets where trust assumptions change.
• Unify fraud and identity case handling Create shared investigation paths for fraud, identity verification, and customer recovery so the same event does not get treated as separate problems by different teams.

Key takeaways

• Fraud is increasingly a governance and growth problem, not only a loss-prevention problem.
• The report shows channel shifts, first-party ambiguity, and product expansion decisions are now part of the same control environment.
• Teams that unify fraud signals with identity and case management are better placed to extend trust safely without creating new exposure.

Related NHI Mgmt Group resources: Fraud Prevention Guide for Digital Businesses · Fraud and Cyber Convergence Guide · Top 10 Online Fraud Attacks

Key terms

• First Party Fraud: Fraud committed by a real, verified customer who abuses legitimate access to obtain refunds, disputes, chargebacks, or reimbursements. The identity is authentic, but the behaviour is deceptive. In practice, the control problem shifts from proving who the user is to proving whether the claim is consistent, credible, and repeatable.
• Synthetic Identity: A synthetic identity is a software-based actor that can authenticate, request access, and execute actions without being a human user. In practice, this includes AI agents, bots, service accounts, tokens, and other machine identities that need clear ownership, scope, and revocation.
• Omnichannel Fraud: Omnichannel fraud is abuse that moves across connected shopping channels such as web, mobile, and physical stores. It exploits gaps between touchpoints, where identity checks, payment validation, and fulfilment controls do not line up cleanly. Retailers need shared visibility across the journey to catch it early.
• Goodwill Credit: A discretionary customer reimbursement or compensation used after a fraud incident to preserve trust and retention. It is not a control in itself, but it is part of the operating model that determines how a financial institution responds when prevention fails.

Deepen your knowledge

The NHI Foundation Level course, the industry's only accredited NHI security programme, covers NHI governance, workload identity, and secrets management for practitioners who need to connect identity control to broader security outcomes. It helps security leaders translate identity risk into decisions that support both governance and operational resilience.