The problem
Why fraud & aml detection is hard to get right
Rules engines fire on patterns yesterday's fraudsters used, so true fraud slips through while analysts drown in false positives — often 90-plus percent of alerts are noise. Every missed case is a loss and a regulatory exposure; every false alert is wasted investigator time. The hard part is lifting recall without making the backlog worse, and proving the model to a validation team that distrusts anything it cannot explain.
How we build it
01
Behavioral and graph features
Entity-resolution and transaction-graph features that surface mule networks and layering the rules engine never sees, engineered from your own history.
02
Risk-ranked alert triage
Models that score and rank alerts so investigators work the riskiest cases first, with the noisy long tail auto-dispositioned and logged.
03
Explainability for the second line
Reason codes and case narratives on every alert so analysts act faster and model risk can validate what drove each decision.
04
Monitoring against drift
Champion/challenger pipelines and drift detection that keep precision from decaying as typologies and customer behavior shift.
The outcome
Analysts work a smaller, sharper queue — measurably higher true-positive rate and a shrinking backlog — with a documented, monitored model your validators can sign off on rather than fight.
Related
Key concepts
More use cases