Managing dynamic fraud threats

The real costs of fraud

Front-line fraud teams are under pressure. In a sector struggling with dynamic threats and high staff turnover, maintaining an effective operational response is becoming ever-more difficult.

The scale of the challenge is immense. Fraud now accounts for 41% of all crime¹ in England and Wales. In 2024, UK fraud losses were valued at £1.17 billion, with caseloads increasing 12% year-on-year to 3.3 million². Card fraud alone saw a massive 22% increase in caseload³. Such dynamic changes in workload have heaped immense operational pressure on fraud teams.

Meanwhile, recent regulatory changes have shifted liability for authorised push payment fraud directly to both “sending” and “receiving” firms. For banks, this is no longer a marginal cost but a structural risk in a digitally interconnected world.

The moment of truth

How your institution responds when a customer is targeted is critical. A poor response destroys trust, with research showing that 66% of fraud victims would consider switching banks after a poorly handled incident. In contrast, exceptional support can create your most loyal advocates. But beyond customer retention, the real cost is human. Behind every case is a person left feeling vulnerable and devastated. Consider the working parent who saves for a family holiday, only to find the apartment they booked and paid for doesn’t exist.

Smarter fraud management with Sigma Connected

With caseloads for complex scams increasing and new regulatory pressures mounting, many institutions lack the resources to manage these challenges effectively. At Sigma Connected, we’ve recognised this gear change. While complex fraud management was once kept in-house due to concerns about specialist skills, we are living proof that the right outsourcing partner can deliver a cost-effective solution with performance that matches the quality of internal departments. The outcome is better protection for your customers and commercial interests.

Banks need to be asking not whether they can afford to improve their fraud response, but whether they can afford not to.