Why do Item Not Received claims create higher fraud risk after the holidays?

Why holiday timing makes Item Not Received claims easier to abuse

Holiday periods compress a merchant’s normal controls. More parcels are in flight, more exceptions are being processed, and customer service teams are under pressure to clear backlogs quickly. That creates a window where a fraudster can make an item not received claim that looks plausible enough to slip through, especially if evidence from the carrier or fulfilment system is delayed.

What changes in the evidence trail after peak season

The main issue is not that every holiday claim is fraudulent, but that the usual signals become noisier. Tracking scans can lag, delivery exceptions can pile up, and refund teams may rely on incomplete records to keep queues moving. When the operational picture is messy, weak claims are harder to distinguish from genuine late deliveries, and that raises the chance of premature reimbursement.

Seasonal volume also makes it easier for bad actors to blend in. A claim that might look unusual in a quiet month can seem ordinary when the merchant is already seeing more “where is my order” contacts, more carrier delays, and more customer disputes. Fraudsters exploit that normalisation effect because they do not need to prove a sophisticated story, only one that fits the expected holiday chaos.

Why merchants should treat holiday INR claims as a control problem

INR fraud is often an access-to-refund problem as much as a shipping problem. The control weakness appears when fulfilment, carrier, and support teams cannot reconcile the same order quickly enough to challenge a claim before money is released. If the process rewards speed over verification, fraud risk rises precisely when claim volume is highest.

That means the practical question is not whether holiday claims are legitimate in the abstract, but whether the merchant can still verify them fast enough under peak load. If not, the claims workflow becomes a soft target for repeat abusers, organised fraud rings, and opportunists who learn that holiday exceptions are less likely to be investigated deeply.

Risk and Threat Considerations

Holiday INR fraud is risky because high-volume operations reduce the quality of review at the same time that disputed-delivery claims become more believable. The result is a concentration of exposure in refund operations, chargeback handling, and customer trust, especially when merchants lack timely carrier telemetry.

Failure mechanism: Delayed fulfilment updates, backlog pressure, and exception-heavy shipping records weaken the evidence available to reviewers, so questionable claims can be approved before a proper challenge is raised.

Impact: Merchants can lose revenue directly through refunds and indirectly through repeat abuse, higher support costs, and distorted fraud signals that make future screening less reliable.

Practitioner Guidance

What to prioritise: Focus review effort on holiday claims that combine multiple weak signals, such as first-time customers, mismatched delivery history, and repeated contacts about the same order. Claims with no carrier milestone after dispatch deserve faster escalation than claims with a clear but delayed transit trail.

What to verify: Before issuing a refund, verify the order’s scan history, delivery exception codes, address consistency, and any prior refund or dispute pattern tied to the account. The most important judgement is whether the claim is missing evidence because the parcel is delayed, or because the claim itself is opportunistic.

What good looks like: A strong holiday control process can separate genuine late deliveries from abuse without forcing every case into manual review. The goal is not zero false positives, but a queue that preserves enough evidence quality to make refund decisions defensible.

Practitioner takeaway: After the holidays, the key risk is not just more INR claims, it is lower evidence quality at the exact moment when fast refund decisions are most tempting.

Related resources from NHI Mgmt Group

• Why do account takeovers create fraud risk even after strong onboarding checks?
• Why do no KYC casinos create higher AML and fraud risk?
• Why do billing account update requests create a higher fraud risk than routine invoices?
• Why do marketplace accounts create a higher fraud risk than ordinary consumer logins?