- Fraud moves three P&L numbers: loss rate, approval rate on good customers, and chargeback and dispute cost. We manage all three to explicit targets, not just a compliance checklist.
- A program tuned only for the sponsor bank — the partner bank behind your card or account program — often declines good customers and over-provisions for losses better models would catch.
- AI-generated identity fraud is now the top identity-fraud vector; 2026 data puts the confirmed rate near one in twenty-six verifications. The 2020-era onboarding stack cannot see it.
- We deliver fraud teardowns, model and approval-rate design, AML/BSA control gap assessments, KYC/KYB (identity and business verification) design, and fractional CRO coverage.
Most fraud-adjacent firms get this backward: they sell fraud as a compliance obligation and treat loss rates and approval rates as someone else's problem. For a payments or fintech business, fraud is a P&L function — every basis point of loss and every wrongly declined customer hits the income statement. Our team designs fraud and decisioning systems to hit loss-rate and approval-rate targets, not just to survive an exam. See our full payment fraud strategy guide for how the fraud mix has shifted.
Why this becomes urgent at growth stage
Four triggers repeatedly bring growth-stage teams to us:
- Rising fraud losses. As volume scales, so does the value of attacking you. AI-generated identity fraud — synthetic identities, deepfake documents, fabricated selfies — is now the leading identity-fraud vector, and first-party fraud has become one of the most commonly reported fraud types. A control set that held at Series B quietly stops holding.
- A sponsor bank asking for evidence. Post-Synapse, sponsor banks demand documented, continuously monitored financial-crime controls from every program. A vague answer to “show us your transaction-monitoring tuning” is now a growth-cap risk.
- Pre-raise diligence. Growth-stage and pre-IPO investors increasingly require AML and fraud-program review as a diligence item. Gaps found late can reprice or delay a round.
- Exam prep. When an examination is on the calendar, the company needs an outside, examiner's-eye read on where the program would draw a finding — and time to remediate before the exam, not after.
The operator's read
Most fraud and AML programs fail diligence not because the company did nothing, but because the controls were built reactively, one incident at a time, and cannot be evidenced as a coherent, monitored system. Examiners and sponsor banks are testing whether your controls are a program — not whether you own a fraud tool.
What fi-nex delivers
Fraud performance program
We set explicit loss-rate and approval-rate targets tied to your unit economics, then design the models, rules, and step-up logic to hit them — recovering good customers a blunt rules engine declines while catching losses a compliance-only program misses. We also manage chargebacks and disputes as a line: representment strategy, network dispute rules, and interchange-loss economics.
Fraud strategy teardown
A current-state review of where you are losing money and where you are exposed — onboarding, account takeover, first-party fraud, scams, and agentic-commerce disputes — followed by a prioritized roadmap your team can execute.
AML / BSA control gap assessment
An end-to-end review of your BSA/AML program against what examiners test — risk assessment, CDD/KYB, transaction monitoring, sanctions screening, SAR decisioning, and evidence retention — delivered as a gap report plus remediation plan. This is the same control pack behind a clean sponsor bank diligence process.
KYC / KYB & onboarding risk
We design onboarding and identity controls for the AI-fraud era: layered verification combining document, device, behavioral, and consortium signals, tuned to keep friction on real customers low while catching machine-quality fabrication.
Fractional CRO
For companies that need senior risk leadership but not a full-time hire, we cover risk appetite, the sponsor-bank risk relationship, and the risk narrative for investors and examiners — through a raise, launch, or exam cycle.
Why fi-nex
Our team built fraud, identity, risk, and decisioning systems inside Fiserv, FICO, Oracle, Citi, and Wells Fargo, including risk-consortium products and synthetic-identity defenses at network scale. We have sat on the side of the table that runs the examination, which is why we can tell you quickly and honestly where your real exposure is. If you're adding models or agents to your decisioning, see our AI and agentic decisioning advisory.
Fraud losses climbing, or diligence coming?
Whether you're seeing AI-era fraud slip through, a sponsor bank asking for control evidence, or an exam on the calendar, that is exactly the kind of problem our senior operators work on with growth-stage teams.
Book a working callFAQ
Can fraud be treated as a P&L lever rather than just compliance?
Yes — and for a payments or fintech business it should be. Fraud strategy moves three P&L numbers: loss rate, approval rate on good customers, and chargeback and dispute cost. A program tuned only for the sponsor bank often declines good customers or over-provisions for losses better models would catch. We set explicit targets, design the models to hit them, and manage disputes as a line you optimize — while still producing controls that pass diligence.
What does a fractional Chief Risk Officer do for a fintech?
A fractional CRO gives a growth-stage company senior risk leadership without a full-time executive hire — setting risk appetite, owning the sponsor bank risk relationship, standing up fraud and AML controls, and being the credible risk voice for investors and examiners. It fits companies that have outgrown ad-hoc risk ownership but aren't ready for a permanent CRO, or need coverage through a raise, launch, or exam cycle.
What does an AML control gap assessment cover?
We review your BSA/AML program end to end against what a sponsor bank's examiners actually test: the risk assessment, customer due diligence and KYB, transaction monitoring rules and their tuning, sanctions screening, SAR decisioning and quality, case management, and evidence retention. The output is a prioritized gap report and a remediation plan scoped to close the findings that would most likely stall a diligence review or draw an examination finding.
How has AI changed the fraud a fintech has to defend against?
AI-generated identity fraud — synthetic identities, deepfake documents, fabricated selfies — is now the dominant identity-fraud vector, with 2026 industry data putting the confirmed rate near one in twenty-six verifications. The document-plus-selfie stack that worked in 2020 can't reliably spot machine-quality fabrication, so fraud strategy now has to combine document checks with device intelligence, behavioral signals, and consortium data.
How fast can fi-nex deliver a fraud strategy teardown?
A focused fraud strategy teardown typically runs two to four weeks: a current-state review of where you are losing money and where you are exposed, followed by a prioritized roadmap your team can execute. An AML control gap assessment runs on a similar two-to-three-week timeline. We move fast because the people doing the work have built these systems before, not because we cut corners.
How is a fi-nex fraud and risk engagement structured?
Engagements are scoped to the decision in front of you: a fixed-fee fraud strategy teardown, an AML/BSA control gap assessment priced to the gap you are closing, or an ongoing fractional CRO or risk-advisory retainer for coverage through a raise, launch, or exam. We size it on a working call before any commitment.