Topic starter
12/07/2026 12:19 pm
TL;DR: AI is making phishing, impersonation and payment fraud more scalable, while digital identity controls such as qualified electronic signatures and verified credentials are being pulled into the centre of transaction security, according to GlobalSign. The governance shift is clear: identity proofing and cryptographic assurance now sit alongside fraud prevention, not after it.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by GlobalSign: “El futuro de la identidad digital y la seguridad financiera”.
By the numbers:
- In the UK, online shopping rose from 40% of the population in 2020 to 75% in 2022.
- Europe accounted for 26% of global fraud cases in 2023.
- The United States represented 42% of global fraud despite a smaller population.
Key questions
A: Organisations should use cryptographic verification to confirm a user, device, or entity without depending on fragile assumptions or exposed personal data.
Q: Why do qualified electronic signatures matter in fraud prevention?
A: Qualified electronic signatures matter because they create a legally recognised link between a trusted identity and the transaction itself.
Q: What are the signs that an identity proofing process is too weak for high-risk interactions?
A: A weak process usually shows up when organisations depend on basic PII matching, ask the same identity questions at every step, and cannot distinguish a genuine user from someone using stolen details.
Practitioner guidance
- Reclassify identity verification as a transaction control Map verification steps to payment approval, document signing, and high-value workflow triggers so the control exists at the point of fraud opportunity, not just onboarding.
- Require stronger assurance for high-risk approvals Use qualified electronic signatures or equivalent cryptographic proof where impersonation or delegated authority could create material financial loss.
- Separate login assurance from transaction legitimacy Add policy checks that verify the request, not only the authenticated user, before executing transfers or accepting binding approvals.
Bottom line: AI-assisted fraud is pushing digital identity verification into the fraud control stack, not leaving it as a back-office onboarding step.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
12/07/2026 12:32 pm
Digital identity has crossed into fraud operations: this article shows that identity verification is no longer a front-door admin task but a live control in the fraud path. When AI can scale impersonation, the security value of identity proofing is measured at transaction time, not enrollment time. That makes identity assurance a fraud-detection and fraud-prevention concern for IAM, payments, and trust teams alike.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Should organisations prioritise cryptographic trust controls over manual fraud checks?
A: They should prioritise cryptographic trust controls for high-value and high-risk workflows, then use manual review as a backstop. Manual checks are too slow and too easy to bypass when impersonation is the main threat. Cryptographic assurance scales better because it validates identity and transaction integrity before execution.
👉 Read our full editorial: Digital identity verification is becoming a fraud control, not a formality