Papers for

bank fraud detection teams

Papers whose findings have a practical use for this group, as judged from the abstract. Open a paper to read what it means in practice.

Graph-based detection improves money-mule account identification accuracy

Money-Mule Detection as a Relational Learning Problem: A Study on the RBIH NFPC Dataset

Abstract: Money-mule networks move criminal funds through many small transfers, each of which looks ordinary on its own. What marks an account as a mule lies outside any single transfer: in the counterparties and addresses its network shares, and in the shape of its activity over time. Production systems remain largely rule-based and see neither, while most research classifies transactions rather than accounts, recovering account-level risk only by aggregating afterwards. We instead score the account directly, reading the bank's relational schema as a heterogeneous graph in which rows are nodes and foreign keys are edges. Each account is scored from a multi-hop neighbourhood using per-column encoders, a relative-time encoding and HeteroGraphSAGE message passing, with that neighbourhood restricted to rows predating the account's own pre-flag cutoff so that no model sees evidence recorded only after the account was flagged. On a five-year Reserve Bank Innovation Hub (RBIH) retail-banking dataset of 400 million transactions and 94{,}063 labelled accounts, 2.6\% of them confirmed mules, we compare against RelGNN, XGBoost, LightGBM and CatBoost trained on identical labels, splits and cutoffs. Our detector recovers nine in ten held-out mules at 83\% precision and a 0.5\% false-alarm rate, finding 115 more mules than the strongest tree ensemble given the same evidence. At the tuned thresholds the gap is mostly in recall: XGBoost and LightGBM lead across the first hundred alerts, but only the graph models hold their precision deep into the queue. Since the graph is the schema itself and every score is dated per account, the approach deploys on a bank's existing database without a custom feature graph build.

Thu 15 OctArtificial Intelligence
The gist
Criminals use many small transactions to hide money movements, making it hard to spot suspicious accounts by looking at single transfers. The authors treat the bank’s data as a graph where accounts and other records are connected, and analyze the relationships and timing of these connections to find accounts acting as money mules. Their method outperforms common approaches by identifying more suspicious accounts with fewer false alarms. This approach works directly on existing bank databases without needing complicated extra data preparation.
Open → 2610.21314v1