Topic starter
10/06/2026 10:40 pm
TL;DR: Financial institutions are being outpaced by fraudsters who exploit the seams between fraud, cyber and compliance teams, while AI reshapes both attack and defence conversations, according to SumSub’s WTF? Summit discussion with FATF, Singapore FinTech Association and Coinhako. Cross-functional governance is now a control issue, not an organisational preference.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by SumSub: “APAC Fraud Insights: Singapore WTF? Summit - Part 2”.
Key questions
A: They should not treat the data as separate if the same customer, account or payment event can trigger all three functions.
Q: Who is accountable when fraud, cyber and compliance teams miss the same threat?
A: Accountability should sit with the operating model owner who defines how evidence, escalation and reporting move across departments.
Q: What are the signs that internal financial crime governance is failing?
A: Common warning signs include repeated duplicate investigations, delayed escalations, inconsistent case fields and decisions that have to be rechecked by another team before action.
Practitioner guidance
- Build a shared financial crime case model Unify fraud, cyber and compliance events into one investigation path with common status, ownership and escalation fields.
- Align fraud and cyber telemetry Map which signals must be visible to both fraud analysts and security operations so suspicious behaviour can be correlated early.
- Define AI decision authority Specify which teams can consume AI outputs, which decisions those outputs may support and what evidence must be retained.
Bottom line: Financial crime risk grows when fraud, cyber and compliance teams cannot see the same event through one operational lens.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group
11/06/2026 2:47 am
Siloed financial-crime operations create an identity governance failure, not just a process gap. When fraud, cyber and compliance teams hold different views of the same user, account or transaction, the organisation loses a consistent control plane. The article’s core warning is that criminals are not defeating each tool separately; they are exploiting the handoff between them. Practitioners should treat inter-team fragmentation as a governance defect with direct security consequences.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 79% of organisations have experienced secrets leaks, with 77% of these incidents resulting in tangible damage, according to the Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, which shows how often identity governance still stops at the handoff point.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable when fraud, cyber and compliance teams miss the same threat?
A: Accountability should sit with the operating model owner who defines how evidence, escalation and reporting move across departments. When a case fails because no team owned the handoff, the problem is structural. Financial institutions need a single governance path for suspicious events, even if multiple teams contribute controls.
👉 Read our full editorial: Fraud, cyber and compliance silos are widening financial crime gaps
12/06/2026 4:21 am
Fraud, cyber and compliance silos are now a governance vulnerability, not just an operating-model inconvenience. The article makes clear that criminals are exploiting the seams between teams that were designed to optimise separately. In identity terms, this is a coordination failure across detection, investigation and decision authority. The practical conclusion is that financial crime governance must be designed around shared cases, not departmental boundaries.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of companies reported that fraud losses were still increasing in 2025.
A question worth separating out:
Q: What should teams do when cross-border intelligence sharing is limited by local rules?
A: They should first make internal sharing consistent. A common taxonomy, aligned escalation rules and a single view of the case are prerequisites for useful external collaboration. If the institution cannot coordinate within its own walls, it will not be able to make good use of regional or partner intelligence.
👉 Read our full editorial: Fraud, cyber and compliance silos are widening financial crime gaps
This post was modified 1 day ago by NHI Mgmt Group