Solutions / Fraud detection

Fraud & anomaly detection

Every transaction is screened in seconds against patterns learned from your own history, with a reason attached to each flag and a threshold you control.

Finance Risk ML
100% screened
in 1–3 seconds per transaction
Reasons on every flag
not an opaque score
Threshold is yours
tuned to the review capacity you have
Who it is for

Finance, fintech and marketplace risk teams screening enough volume that manual review can no longer see everything.

Short answer

A model learns what normal looks like in your data — amounts, timing, counterparties, devices, sequences — and scores each transaction as it arrives. Anything above your threshold goes to a review queue with the reasons that triggered it and the comparable history a reviewer needs. Every decision a reviewer makes feeds back, so the model keeps learning from the calls your own team makes.

The problem

Rules catch what someone thought of two years ago, and everything new arrives as a chargeback.

01

Static rules go stale

A threshold written when the business was smaller now flags half of the legitimate large orders and misses the pattern that actually costs money. Nobody dares change it because nobody knows what it protects.

02

Review capacity is the real limit

The queue holds more than the team can look at, so the bottom half is approved unseen. Every genuine case sitting in that half is a loss nobody will ever attribute.

03

Blocking honest customers costs more than the fraud

An over-tuned system declines good transactions, and each decline is a lost sale plus a support ticket plus a customer who tries a competitor next time.

How it works

From trigger to result, step by step.

01

Label the history honestly

Confirmed fraud, chargebacks, disputes, and cases that turned out to be legitimate. Fraud is rare, so how the positives are labelled matters more here than in almost any other model.

02

Build behavioural features

Deviation from the customer’s own pattern, velocity, device and location changes, counterparty history, time of day, sequence of actions. Absolute amount alone is the weakest signal in the set.

03

Combine model and rules

A model catches unfamiliar patterns; explicit rules catch known ones and anything a regulator requires. Rules stay editable by your team, and the two layers are reported on separately.

04

Set the threshold to your capacity

The trade-off between catching more and reviewing more is made explicitly, with the precision-recall curve in front of you. We set the operating point where your team can actually work the queue.

05

Close the feedback loop

Reviewer decisions are recorded and become training data. Model performance and reviewer agreement are reported monthly, and retraining happens on a schedule rather than after an incident.

Before / after

What changes on the ground.

Today, by hand
×Static rules written years ago
×Queue larger than the team can review
×Unfamiliar patterns discovered via chargebacks
×Good customers declined with no explanation
With the automation running
Every transaction scored in seconds
Queue sized to the capacity you actually have
New patterns detected without a rule being written
Each flag carries its reasons and comparable history
What you get

Delivered, not demoed.

A labelled fraud history and an honest read on what it supports
A scoring model plus an editable rules layer, reported separately
A review queue with reasons, evidence and one-click decisions
A threshold set from the precision-recall trade-off, with you in the room
A feedback loop, monthly performance reporting and retraining
Built with

We build in your stack rather than moving you onto ours. The list below is what this solution most often connects to — other systems are a scoping question, not a blocker.

Python scikit-learn XGBoost Isolation Forest Kafka PostgreSQL Redis FastAPI
Time to production8–12 weeks
Build priceFixed quote
First stepFree mini-audit
Honest limits

When this is not the right solution.

·With very few confirmed fraud cases there is nothing to learn from. Rules plus a review process come first, and the model becomes possible once cases accumulate.
·If nobody can review the flags, a better detector just grows a queue. The review capacity has to exist before the detection is worth building.
·If a regulator requires a specific, auditable rule set, the model supplements it and does not replace it — and we will design for that constraint explicitly.

Questions we get about this one

That is a dial, not a fact. We show you the precision-recall curve and set the threshold where your review capacity is, then report both numbers monthly so you can move it deliberately.

Bring us the process that hurts.

The mini-audit is free: we take your version of this process apart and tell you plainly whether automating it pays. If it does, you get a scope and a fixed price.