Trend Report

A Two-View Framework for Fraud Exposure

A Two-View Framework for Fraud Exposure puts reported losses next to detected fraud activity across the banks studied, over the same period. The gap is the exposure most institutions never see. Download it to learn where it hides, why it widens as detection improves, and how to size your own.

7.3×

How much larger detected fraud exposure ran than the reported figure in the sample.

$552M

Authorised push payment detected exposure, the largest category, against $99M reported.

$274M

Account takeover detected exposure, against roughly $5M reported: the widest gap of any channel.

About

Most institutions manage fraud against the one number guaranteed to understate it: what got reported.

Reported fraud is a record of what left the building, confirmed, closed, written off. It is clean, auditable, and the smallest honest number you have. Detected fraud is a record of what was actually happening: the suspicious sessions, the takeovers caught before the money moved, the exposure that never became a formal loss. Same period, two very different pictures.

A Two-View Framework for Fraud Exposure sets both side by side across the banks studied and measures the gap between them, channel by channel. Then it hands you the method to run the same calculation on your own numbers.

Fill out the form to access the full report

Download this report to learn:

How the two-view framework separates reported fraud from your true exposure
Why the gap widens as your detection improves, and what that actually signals
Where the exposure hides: authorised push payment, account takeover, and new-account abuse
The exact method to calculate your own detected exposure, using data you already hold
The cross-cutting mule cash-out layer most institutions have never measured
How Group-IB Fraud Protection powers the detected view behind the study

Get in touch with the Group-IB team to learn how Fraud Protection maps to the two-view framework.