10 Things Bankers Should Learn from Scammers and Fraudsters
Introduction
Fraudsters are constantly innovating—exploiting human psychology, technological loopholes, and global networks to steal billions. For banks, fighting financial crime is an AI arms race against increasingly sophisticated scams. By examining the playbook of scammers (from phishing and Ponzi schemes to deepfakes and money laundering rings), banking professionals can glean strategic insights to strengthen fraud detection, AML automation, customer experience, and innovation. Below, we outline ten actionable lessons banks can ethically learn from the world’s most cunning fraudsters, followed by a historical timeline of financial fraud from the ancient world to the crypto era. Every claim is backed by credible sources, and each lesson includes a real fraud example and a banker’s takeaway.
Part 1: Ten Lessons from Fraudsters (for Bankers)
1. Master the Art of Social Engineering (for Good)
Fraud Example: Scammers are adept at social engineering—manipulating people into bypassing security. A striking example occurred in 2019 when criminals used an AI-generated deepfake voice to impersonate a CEO and urgently direct a subordinate to wire $243,000 to a fraudulent account. This tactic has evolved rapidly: in 2024, a Hong Kong-based firm was scammed out of $25 million after an employee joined a video call with what appeared to be familiar company executives—only to later discover they were deepfake avatars controlled by fraudsters. [1] [2]. Similarly, Business Email Compromise (BEC) scams, where fraudsters pose as trusted colleagues or vendors, have exploded. Between 2016 and 2019, BEC scams cost organizations worldwide over $26 billion in losses [3]. These attacks prey on human trust and fear—e.g. an “urgent” request from the boss or a panic-inducing email from “IT support” prompting a password reset.
Banker’s Takeaway: Banks should assume that anyone can be phished or impersonated . Just as scammers exploit human psychology, banks must fortify it. Implement strict multi-factor verification for high-risk transactions (e.g. call-back confirmations for large wires) and provide ongoing security training to staff and customers. Internally, encourage a “trust but verify” culture for unusual requests—even if seemingly from the CEO. Externally, leverage AI-driven anomaly detection to spot telltale signs of account takeover or social engineering. For example, customer behavior analytics can flag if a normally inactive account suddenly initiates rapid transfers, prompting an intervention. By using advanced transaction analysis tools to monitor for out-of-pattern activities in real time [4] [5], banks can catch socially engineered fraud before money walks out the door. Modern solutions now even employ AI to analyze transactional patterns or graph visualizations of fund flows to detect the subtle footprints of social engineeringin action.
2. Create Urgency and Trust – Then Verify Reality
Fraud Example: Many scams succeed by crafting a compelling narrative that builds trust and urgency. Consider classic Ponzi schemes: con artists like Bernie Madoff spent years cultivating a reputation as a genius investor and philanthropist, lulling victims (and even banks) into a false sense of security. Madoff’s fund reported amazingly steady returns for decades – too steady, in hindsight – and attracted $65 billion in investor funds before collapsing in 2008 [6]. Early investors were paid “profits” with new investors’ money, a house of cards sustained by confidence and the allure of exclusive, high-yield returns. Another example: Allen Stanford, who ran a $7 billion Ponzi, sponsored cricket tournaments and charitable events to appear legitimate [7] [8]. These schemes masterfully exploit greed, FOMO, and trust in authority (even King George endorsed the South Sea Company in 1720’s infamous bubble, see Part 2). Victims often overlook red flags due to the scammer’s aura of credibility and the urgency to not “miss out.”
Banker’s Takeaway: Fraudsters are storytellers – so banks must pierce the narrative with data. When a client’s investment returns look “too good to be true” or funds flow in unusual ways, don’t be blinded by their prestige or longevity. Use objective verification and continuous monitoring even for long-time, “trusted” customers. Madoff, for instance, was a well-known figure, yet JPMorgan ignored mounting red flags; for years Madoff laundered billions through a single bank because warnings were not escalated [9] [10]. The lesson is to verify trust with transparency: implement strict KYC/KYB (Know Your Customer/Business) reviews and periodic re-validation of customers’ activities against their profiles. Encourage a healthy skepticism in compliance teams – if an entity’s transaction patterns defy industry norms, investigate why. Banks can also deploy data visualization dashboards that cut through complex account histories to reveal anomalies (e.g. an account consistently yielding high returns regardless of market conditions). An ethical twist on the scammer’s playbook is for banks to create their own urgency around due diligence – promptly follow up on any inconsistency or tip (whistleblowers warned about Madoff years earlier). In short, trust your clients, but trust your data and controls more.
3. Exploit Data (Like Hackers Do) to Predict Fraud
Fraud Example: Modern fraudsters treat data as their treasure. Through hacks and data breaches, they steal personal information to impersonate customers or create synthetic identities. For example, synthetic identity fraud – where criminals combine real stolen data (like a Social Security number) with fake details to build a new “person” – cost U.S. banks an estimated $20 billion in 2020 [11]. These fake personas opened accounts and credit lines that looked legitimate until they “busted out” with unpaid loans. Fraud rings also harvest leaked passwords to take over online banking accounts, or use malware to collect card data. A single breach can fuel countless frauds: the 2017 Equifax breach exposed data of 147 million Americans, leading to years of identity theft attempts. Criminals even share tools and stolen data on the dark web, essentially running fraud as an organized digital business.
Banker’s Takeaway: Banks should weaponize data for defense just as crooks do for offense. This means investing in advanced analytics, AI-driven pattern recognition, and information-sharing. First, break down silos: integrate data from across the enterprise (transactions, logins, customer profiles) to get a 360° view. Then, deploy machine learning to detect subtle patterns – for instance, multiple accounts using the same phone number or address (a clue to synthetic IDs), or a customer’s device fingerprint suddenly changing. Transaction monitoring systems should flag if a usually local customer starts transacting from foreign IP addresses or if funds begin routing through new intermediaries atypical for that client. Modern AML systems can harness graph analytics to connect seemingly unrelated accounts that frequently trade or funnel money between each other. Such network analysis can unmask mule networks (one bank uncovered a ring of 90+ accounts linked by a common email syntax). Additionally, banks must collaborate: share threat intelligence on emerging fraud tactics (via industry groups or schemes like the FBI’s Fusion Cells). By analyzing big data trends – much like fraudsters do when scoping victims – banks can predict and preempt scams , rather than just react. Think of it as using the scammers’ data-driven mindset against them, ethically: if hackers sift data to find vulnerabilities, banks should sift data to find hackers.
4. Stay Agile and Adapt to New Threats
Fraud Example: If scammers have a superpower, it’s agility. They pivot quickly to exploit news and technology. When the COVID-19 pandemic hit, fraudsters launched a blitz of new schemes in weeks – from fake PPP loan websites to unemployment benefit fraud on a massive scale. In the U.S., over $100 billion was siphoned off through fraudulent pandemic unemployment claims [12] [13] as criminals took advantage of overwhelmed systems. Internationally, criminals shifted tactics overnight (e.g. targeting remote workers with phishing emails or spoofing health authorities). Likewise, as faster payment systems roll out, scammers have adjusted: the U.K. saw a surge in “authorized push payment” scams where victims are conned into sending instant bank transfers, leading to £479 million in losses in 2020 (prompting new refund rules) [14] [15]. Fraudsters even iterate their scripts based on what works, A/B testing phishing messages for higher click rates.
Banker’s Takeaway: Speed is survival. Banks must embrace an agile, proactive approach to fraud and compliance – bureaucratic lag can be fatal. This means shortening the feedback loop: when a new scam or modus operandi is reported, rapidly update rules and train staff. For example, as soon as COVID relief fraud patterns emerged, banks that quickly implemented extra verification for out-of-state benefit deposits or flagged mismatches in claimant names saw far fewer losses. Agile banks are also adopting real-time fraud detection on payments (not waiting until after money is gone). A real-time AI engine can decline or pause suspect transactions mid-stream if risk signals hit (for instance, a sudden large wire to a first-time beneficiary in a high-risk country) [16] [17]. Just as scammers tweak their tactics on the fly, banks should consider “fraud SWAT teams” that monitor emerging threats and adjust controls immediately (daily if needed). Regular red team exercises can help: task internal teams or external experts to simulate new fraud techniques against your systems to find gaps before real criminals do. An agile bank also means empowering front-line employees – give branch tellers and call center reps the authority to pause a transaction if something feels off (many elderly customers have been saved from scam transfers by an alert banker who intervened). In essence, outmaneuver criminals by moving as fast as they do; anticipate trends (e.g. deepfake scams, crypto fraud) and be ready with countermeasures before they go mainstream.
5. Follow the Money Trail – Criminals Do
Fraud Example: Criminal networks excel at obfuscating the money trail. They break transactions into many hops and layers, often using “money mules” – accomplices (witting or unwitting) who receive and forward illicit funds to hide the true beneficiary. For instance, European authorities uncovered mule networks where hundreds of individuals were moving illicit proceeds through small transfers, adding layers of distance between the criminal and the cash [18] [19]. Organized rings also leverage shell companies and intermediaries to launder money across borders (a notorious example: the Russian “Mirror Network” laundered billions through a daisy-chain of banks and offshore firms). Fraudsters essentially map out financial networks and exploit gaps in inter-agency or inter-bank communication. The 2016 Bangladesh Bank cyber-heist is a case in point: hackers sent $81 million in fraudulent transfers via the SWIFT network, then funneled the money through casinos and money changers in the Philippines – a jurisdictional maze that complicated recovery [20] [21].
Banker’s Takeaway: Think like a forensic accountant – map the entire web of transactions, not just individual nodes. Banks can invest in tools that build graphical analysis of accounts and transactions, illuminating hidden connections (like shared IP addresses, common beneficiaries, or cyclic money flows) that manual reviews miss. By visualizing the “money map,” compliance teams can follow suspicious funds through complex paths and uncover the bigger picture of organized fraud. Importantly, share information: fraudsters count on banks not talking to each other. Use legal gateways (e.g. the USA PATRIOT Act Section 314(b) or Europe’s FIU cooperation mechanisms) to share intelligence on suspected mule accounts or emerging laundering patterns. If one bank sees a customer receive multiple small deposits and then immediately wire them out (classic mule behavior), alerting other institutions can prevent the next step in the chain. Also, coordinate with law enforcement early; even partial data (like a mule’s name or a shell company’s registration) can help paint the full picture when combined with intelligence from other sources. In short, networked crime demands a networked defense . Fraudsters leverage global financial connectivity – banks must do the same, partnering across institutions and borders to trace illicit flows. By mastering “follow-the-money” techniques, banks turn the tables: complex laundering schemes become high-resolution maps pointing to the perpetrators.
6. Embrace Technology – Because Fraudsters Will
Fraud Example: The most successful scammers are often tech early-adopters. They were among the first to leverage AI for crime – from deepfake audio (as in the CEO phone scam) to AI-written phishing emails that evade spam filters. Criminal rings use automated botnets to test stolen card numbers or credentials at scale, and encrypt their communications on the dark web. In recent years, criminals have exploited cryptocurrencies and blockchain tech: mixers like Tornado Cash were used to launder over $7 billion in dirty crypto since 2019 [22] by algorithmically breaking and rejoining transaction trails. Even deepfake videos have emerged – in one 2023 case, fraudsters used a deepfake of a company director on a Zoom call to authorize a transfer (the attendees had no idea they were speaking with an AI impostor). On the flip side, banks have started deploying AI in defense – but the race is tight. As one fintech risk expert described, it’s a constant “digital arms race” with each side trying to outpace the other [23] [24].
Banker’s Takeaway: Leverage good AI to fight bad AI. Banks should actively incorporate emerging technologies (AI, biometrics, blockchain analytics) into their anti-fraud arsenal as fast as – or faster than – criminals do. For instance, use AI-powered voice recognition to detect if a caller’s voice matches the customer’s voiceprint on record, which could thwart deepfake phone fraud. Similarly, deploy machine learning models that continuously learn from new fraud patterns; unlike static rules, adaptive AI can catch novel schemes that don’t match yesterday’s profiles [25] [26]. One powerful approach is link analysis : AI can sift through millions of transactions to find patterns (say, a cluster of accounts transacting in round amounts at odd hours) that humans miss, boosting proactive fraud detection. Banks are also starting to use computer vision on IDs and selfies to spot deepfake or forged documents during onboarding (there are AI solutions now that detect if an uploaded “photo ID” is actually a digitally manipulated image). On the cryptocurrency front, embrace blockchain forensic tools – if criminals use crypto, banks can trace crypto. Blockchain analysis firms can flag addresses linked to illicit activity, enabling banks to screen and even freeze transfers to mixers or sanction-listed wallets. The key is a mindset shift: innovate in defense. Just as scammers aren’t afraid to beta-test new tech to steal, banks should pilot cutting-edge tech to secure. Allocate R&D budget for compliance innovation, encourage fintech partnerships, and cultivate an internal culture that is excited about new tools (rather than wary of them). In summary, don’t bring a knife to an AI gunfight – arm up with the latest technology for a fighting chance in the fraud wars.
7. Red-Team Your Own Bank (Think Like a Criminal)
Fraud Example: Ever notice how scammers seem to know exactly where the weak spots are? They probe constantly for vulnerabilities – whether it’s a bank website’s less-secure subdomain, an employee’s publicly exposed email, or a loophole in transaction screening thresholds. A notorious example is the 2016 Bangladesh Bank heist: attackers gained entry likely through an unpatched system, then discovered the bank’s printer used for SWIFT confirmation was off on weekends (helping delay detection) [27] [28]. They even cleverly misspelled “foundation” as “fandation” in a transfer instruction to evade a watchlist trigger (the word “foundation” was flagged at the Fed, but “fandation” passed). This kind of insider knowledge comes from thinking like an attacker. Fraudsters often do dry runs – sending small test transactions to see if they get flagged, or calling customer service with partial info to see what verification is asked. Essentially, they red-team our financial systems relentlessly.
Banker’s Takeaway: It’s time to beat them at their own game: conduct regular adversarial testing on your bank . Banks can hire professional ethical hackers or form internal red teams to simulate fraud attempts and social engineering attacks. For example, test your new account onboarding by attempting to open accounts with synthetic identities – do the fake IDs get caught? Launch phishing email tests at employees to gauge who clicks, then train and repeat. Try “smishing” (SMS phishing) or vishing (voice phishing) your own call centers to see if agents properly verify caller identity. In IT, run penetration tests not just for data breaches but specifically to see if someone could alter transaction data or exploit a business process (e.g. is there a way to spoof an email approval for a wire transfer?). The findings from these exercises should directly inform stronger controls. Perhaps your red team finds they could walk into a branch with a forged driver’s license and withdraw $5,000 from a random account – use that to enhance teller training and authentication steps. Or maybe a tester finds your wire room will process a faxed request with a mere signature copy – time to require call-backs for faxed instructions. This process is essentially quality assurance through a criminal lens . Regulators are increasingly supportive of such simulated attack exercises, and some jurisdictions even mandate them for cyber resilience. The more you think like a thief, the more secure your institution becomes. After all, who better to reveal your blind spots than someone creatively emulating the bad guys? Find the holes and patch them before a real criminal does.
8. Leverage Insider Knowledge and Collaboration
Fraud Example: While we often picture outside hackers, many frauds involve insiders or at least insider knowledge. Criminals skillfully recruit bank insiders (for example, a helpdesk employee bribed to give up a one-time password, or a loan officer colluding to approve bogus loans). In other cases, criminals benefit from the lack of collaboration among legitimate parties. A famous failure of communication was the case of Bernie Madoff again – different departments and banks had suspicions, but no one connected the dots until it was too late. JPMorgan’s London desk noticed odd transactions, and its U.S. compliance team had concerns, yet these were not effectively shared internally or with regulators [29] [30]. Fraudsters thrive in these silos. Similarly, cross-border scams exploit the fact that Bank A in country X doesn’t talk to Bank B in country Y – by the time authorities piece things together, the money (and criminals) are long gone.
Banker’s Takeaway: Break down the silos – within your bank and across the industry. Internally, ensure that fraud intelligence is shared enterprise-wide. If your credit card division sees a spike in fraud rings, alert the deposit account teams who might soon see related activity. Establish an internal fraud knowledge hub and regular cross-department briefings. Technology can help: use case management systems that different units (fraud, AML, cybersecurity) can all contribute to and review. This way, a suspicious pattern in one area raises a company-wide alarm. Externally, participate in information-sharing forums. Many countries have set up banker alliances against fraud (like the UK’s JMLIT – Joint Money Laundering Intelligence Taskforce – which pools intel between banks and law enforcement). In the U.S., banks can share customer fraud information under safe harbor via Section 314(b) of the PATRIOT Act. Taking advantage of these can turn isolated insights into collective action. Insider fraud risk also means engaging and monitoring your own employees. Cultivate a culture where employees feel accountable to report unethical behavior, and rotate staff in sensitive roles to prevent long-term collusion. Conduct proactive screenings (within legal limits) to detect if staff might be under financial duress or exhibiting risky behavior (many banks use behavioral analytics on employees’ system access patterns to spot possible rogue actions). Ultimately, fraud fighting is a team sport. By collaborating and sharing knowledge, banks deny fraudsters one of their key advantages: that defenders are divided. When banks and agencies unite, the fraudulent schemes that once slipped through the cracks can be spotted and stopped via collective vigilance.
9. Layer Defenses to Counter Layered Crimes
Fraud Example: Fraudsters rarely rely on a single point of failure – they layer their schemes to maximize success. Take money laundering: criminals often use a layering phase, shuffling illicit funds through multiple bank accounts, shell companies, and jurisdictions to muddy the trail. One of the largest money laundering scandals in history involved Danske Bank’s Estonian branch, where around €200 billion in suspicious non-resident payments flowed through 2007–2015. The funds came from Russia and elsewhere and were funneled through complex layers of shell companies to hide the real owners [31] [32]. Authorities later found that thousands of these shell company accounts had fictional owners or opaque structures, making it easy for criminals (potentially including sanctioned individuals) to move money unnoticed. Only a combination of whistleblower reports and deep investigation uncovered the full layering. Another example: shell firms were at the heart of the Panama Papers leak (2016), which exposed how corrupt officials and tax evaders used offshore entities to conceal wealth, prompting new beneficial ownership transparency laws worldwide.
Banker’s Takeaway: To defeat layered fraud, build layered defenses . One layer is customer due diligence: strengthen your onboarding and KYC processes to verify beneficial owners of companies. Don’t just collect paperwork – use external data sources and databases to corroborate that “John Doe” owning XYZ Corp isn’t a straw man. With modern APIs, banks can cross-check corporate registries and sanction lists in real time for new business accounts. Another layer is transaction monitoring that looks not just at one account in isolation, but across all accounts for patterns (e.g. multiple business accounts all sending increments of $9,900 to the same offshore entity – likely structuring to avoid reporting). Implement risk-based trigger events: for instance, if an account starts receiving or sending significantly more money than when originally profiled, require a fresh review (dynamic KYC). Employ enhanced due diligence for high-risk corridors – Danske’s Estonian branch failure was partly due to lax oversight of high-risk non-resident flows. Had they layered robust compliance (like requiring originator identification on incoming wires, checking shell company owners, and scrutinizing unusual volume spikes), the scheme could have been flagged much earlier [33] [34]. Regulators responded by increasing banks’ capital requirements and mandating reforms after that scandal [35]. Banks should take the hint: anticipate regulators by self-imposing tougher multi-layer controls. Think of defense in depth: even if one check misses a clever fraud, another will catch it. A fraudulent wire might bypass an automated rule, but then get picked up in a daily manual review of large exposures. Or a shell company account might open successfully, but its first big transaction triggers a freeze until verified. Each layer – KYC, monitoring, analytics, audits, training – adds friction for the fraudster and reduces the chance that a multi-stage scam can fully succeed.
10. Understand (and Counter) the Psychology of Fraud
Fraud Example: At the core, scams target the human element – emotions and cognitive biases. Whether it’s fear, greed, compassion, or impatience, fraudsters know how to push buttons. Phishing emails often create a panic (“Your account will be closed in 24 hours!”) to prompt quick, irrational action. Romance scams exploit loneliness and trust, persuading victims over months that they’re in a loving relationship, only to request money for a fake emergency. Tech support scams use fear and confusion (“Your computer is infected! Call us immediately!”) to extract payments. One infamous con is the “grandparent scam,” where fraudsters call an elderly person pretending to be a grandchild in distress needing cash bail – playing on both fear and love. The psychology of scarcity is also abused: consider NFT or crypto pump-and-dump schemes where scammers hype a “limited opportunity” to create FOMO (fear of missing out), driving victims to invest quickly. In short, fraudsters are amateur psychologists, adept at getting people to suspend rational judgment.
Banker’s Takeaway: Banks should integrate behavioral science into fraud prevention and customer experience. Start by educating customers about these psychological tactics – informed customers are less likely to panic-click a phishing link or send money to a “stranded relative” without verification. Many banks now run public awareness campaigns highlighting common scam scripts, which has been shown to significantly reduce success rates. Next, incorporate friction at points of emotional decision. For example, if an elderly client attempts an unusually large online transfer, a smart system might present a gentle warning: “Is this transfer related to someone claiming to be your relative in an emergency? It might be a scam – consider calling them first.” Some UK banks have implemented “confirmation of payee” and even delay mechanisms for first-time payees, giving fraud teams a window to contact the customer and verify high-risk transfers (especially for vulnerable customers). On the flip side, improve legitimate customer experience by learning from scammer communication techniques (ethically!). Scammers excel at simple, persuasive messaging – banks can likewise communicate security measures in clear, non-technical language that resonates, rather than legalistic jargon that customers might ignore. Additionally, use customer behavior analytics to detect when a customer’s behavior seems off for them – perhaps indicating they are being socially engineered. If a typically frugal customer suddenly is wiring money overseas, a well-timed automated SMS or call to verify intent can save them from fraud. Finally, ensure your customer-facing staff are trained in empathy and scam recognition. Often a teller or call rep, sensing confusion or distress, can tactfully ask questions that uncover a scam in progress (“Mind if I ask what this $5,000 withdrawal is for? We often see scammers pressure people to withdraw cash like this.”). In essence, counteract the fraudster’s psychology with your own: use nudges, education, and empathetic intervention to keep customers making decisions in their best interest. Protecting people from fraud isn’t only about tech and rules – it’s about understanding people.
Part 2: A Timeline of Financial Fraud – From Ancient Schemes to the Crypto and ChatGPT Era
Fraud is not new – it’s been with us through every era of finance, evolving with technology and prompting new laws in response. Below is a chronological timeline highlighting key periods in financial fraud history, the enabling developments of each era, notable cases, and how authorities responded.
300 B.C. – Ancient Origins of Fraud
Development: The concept of credit and insurance in antiquity created
the first opportunities for financial deceit.
Case: One of the earliest recorded financial frauds was perpetrated
by a Greek merchant named Hegestratos around 300 B.C. He took out an
insurance policy (a bottomry loan) on a ship and its cargo of corn –
agreeing to repay the loan with interest if the cargo arrived safely.
Hegestratos plotted to sink his empty ship and keep the loan money,
effectively cheating the lender. His plan failed when he was caught in the
act and drowned fleeing his crew
[36]
[37].
This foiled scheme stands as the first documented insurance fraud in
history.
Response: Ancient lawmakers soon recognized the need for maritime
trade regulations. Greek and Roman laws against fraud (such as the lex
Rhodia on maritime law) were instituted to punish such deceit. While
primitive by modern standards, these early legal codes laid the groundwork
that fraudulent contracts or sabotage for gain would not be tolerated.
1710s–1720s – The First Stock Bubbles and Scandals
Development: The birth of stock companies and public markets in the
early 18th century enabled mass speculation – and fraud. Governments
granted monopolies to enterprises, and unscrupulous insiders took advantage
of investor mania.
Case: The South Sea Bubble of 1720 in England stands as an
early colossal scam. The South Sea Company, granted a monopoly on trade
with Spanish America, was hyped with extravagant promises. Company
insiders and even government ministers engaged in fraudulent schemes – including bribery and insider trading – to pump the stock price despite
the company having meager real prospects
[38]
[39].
At its peak, shares soared over 800% (from £128 to £1,000), only to
collapse disastrously, losing 80% of value by year’s end
[40]
[41].
Countless investors were ruined, and investigations revealed widespread
corruption and false accounting by the company’s directors. (Notably, Sir
Isaac Newton lost a fortune and lamented he could “calculate the motions of
heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.”)
Response: The British government was spurred to act. Parliament
convened inquiries that exposed the fraud and led to disgrace and
punishment for some South Sea Company officials. In 1720, in reaction to
the bubble, Parliament passed the Bubble Act, aiming to prevent
“fraudulent projects” by requiring royal approval for joint-stock
companies
[42]
[43].
Although the Bubble Act proved problematic and was repealed a few years
later, its intent was an early attempt at securities regulation. Public
anger from the South Sea fiasco also contributed to more cautious investor
attitudes and a lasting metaphor: “South Sea Bubble” became a byword for
financial fraud and folly. Across the English Channel, France experienced a
similar Mississippi Company bubble under John Law – which likewise burst
and led to economic turmoil – reinforcing the lesson that exuberant markets
need oversight to deter fraud.
1792 – The First Market Crash in America
Development: Post-Revolution America saw the emergence of government
bonds and the first stock exchanges. However, regulation was nonexistent,
and speculators with insider access could easily manipulate markets.
Case: William Duer, a former assistant Secretary of the
Treasury and a member of George Washington’s inner circle, engineered
America’s first Wall Street scandal. In 1792, Duer used his inside
knowledge of Treasury operations to speculate heavily in government bonds
and bank stocks, often using leverage and spreading rumors to sway prices
[44]
[45].
When his overleveraged bets collapsed, it triggered the Panic of 1792 – the young nation’s first financial crash. Duer’s downfall landed him in
debtor’s prison (where he died in 1799), and many of his investors were
wiped out
[46]
[47].
Response: The shock of 1792 had a silver lining: it led to greater
organization of the securities market. Just weeks after the crash, traders
in New York gathered under a buttonwood tree on Wall Street and signed the Buttonwood Agreement – effectively creating the NYSE – to establish
rules and commissions for fair trading
[48].
In essence, this was an agreement to restore trust and prevent gross
manipulation: brokers would only deal with each other, at fixed minimum
commissions, curbing some speculative excess. While it wasn’t government
regulation, it was the market self-regulating to avoid another Duer debacle.
This early episode taught American financiers the need for transparency and
limits on insider dealing – lessons that would echo in future crises.
19th Century – Counterfeits and Corporate Scandals
Development: The 1800s saw paper money, rapid industrialization, and
big finance – along with new fraud challenges. The absence of a national
bank in the U.S. and proliferation of state bank notes led to rampant
counterfeiting; later in the century, large corporate enterprises created
opportunities for accounting fraud and stock swindles.
Case (Counterfeiting): By the end of the U.S. Civil War (1865),
counterfeit currency was so prevalent that an estimated one-third of all U.S. money in circulation was fake
[49]
[50].
Gangs of counterfeiters took advantage of primitive printing controls and
the chaos of war to flood the economy with phony banknotes, threatening the
young nation’s financial stability.
Response: On the last day of the Civil War in 1865, President Lincoln
created the United States Secret Service – not for presidential
protection, but specifically to combat counterfeiting
[51].
The Secret Service cracked down on counterfeit rings and introduced
standardized, harder-to-forge currency designs. This dramatically reduced
fake notes and saved the post-war economy. Across the Atlantic, in
Victorian Britain, an era of railway booms and busts brought corporate
frauds – like the 1840s railway stock swindles that led to calls for
company law reform. By the late 19th century, governments started
instituting more robust corporate disclosure requirements (e.g. Britain’s
Joint Stock Companies Act) as a response to fraudulent stock promotions
that had fleeced investors. The creation of professional auditing also
traces back to this period as a defense against management fraud. In short,
the 19th century taught regulators that systemic fraud (be it counterfeit money or corporate deceit) can undermine entire economies, and that law enforcement and legal
frameworks must evolve in step.
1920s – Ponzi Schemes and the Great Crash
Development: The roaring 1920s featured stock market euphoria and
get-rich-quick schemes. New communication tools (telegraphs, phones, mass
mail) allowed frauds to reach more victims. Crucially, a lack of federal
securities laws meant caveat emptor – fraudsters could operate with
impunity until they collapsed.
Case: In 1920, Charles Ponzi became an American legend for
fraud. He promised investors in Boston a 50% profit in 90 days, claiming
arbitrage of international postal reply coupons. In reality, Ponzi was paying early investors with money from later ones – the blueprint of the “Ponzi scheme” that now bears his name. At its
height, Ponzi was raking in cash from about 40,000 people, with an
estimated $15 million in principal invested (over $190 million today) –
before it crashed. When authorities shut him down, investors lost about $20
million
[52].
The term “Ponzi scheme” entered the lexicon to describe this type of
pyramid fraud
[53].
Just years later, the 1929 stock market crash exposed massive market
manipulation: pools of speculators had secretly colluded to pump up stock
prices, then dump them on the public. Insider trading was rampant, and many
companies sold stock on false claims. The crash wiped out billions and
ushered in the Great Depression.
Response: The federal government responded with a regulatory
revolution. In the aftermath of 1929, the U.S. Congress passed the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which, for the first time,
imposed rigorous requirements on securities offerings and trading. The 1934
Act created the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to
enforce these rules
[54].
These laws mandated truthful disclosure in stock sales and outlawed
manipulative practices, fundamentally changing the game. The SEC’s
establishment in 1934 (explicitly “in response to the stock market crash of
1929”)
[55]
was a direct answer to the excessive fraud and speculation of the 1920s.
Additionally, Ponzi’s scam (and others like it in the 1920s) led many
states to pass “Blue Sky Laws” (securities regulations) even before the
federal acts, aiming to protect investors from “blue sky and hot air.” The
legacy of this era is clear: robust financial markets require transparency
and oversight to prevent fraud from again reaching systemic levels.
1970s–1980s – Money Laundering and Global Crackdown
Development: By the late 20th century, organized crime and drug
cartels were generating vast illegal profits, which they sought to launder
through banks. Financial globalization accelerated, and criminals took
advantage of weak links in international oversight. The 1970s also saw the
rise of offshore banking and secret jurisdictions.
Case: One landmark scandal was the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) in the 1980s. This Luxembourg-chartered, Pakistani-run bank operated in 70
countries and became known as the “Bank of Crooks and Criminals
International.” BCCI engaged in massive fraud and money laundering—creating
fake loans, using shell companies, and secret books to hide
losses and criminal clients. When investigators finally cracked down, they
found a $5 to $10 billion hole in BCCI’s balance sheets. In 1991,
regulators shut down BCCI worldwide for massive fraud; the Bank of
England governor stated, “The culture of the bank is criminal”
[56]
[57].
BCCI had been laundering money for drug lords, arms traffickers, and
dictators, exploiting global jurisdictional blind spots.
Response: The world’s regulators realized that dirty money was a
global problem requiring global solutions. The United States had already
taken a step in 1970 with the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) – which
required banks to keep records and report cash transactions over $10,000,
establishing the framework for modern anti-money laundering (AML) controls
[58].
In 1986, the U.S. made money laundering itself a federal crime (Money
Laundering Control Act). On the international stage, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) was created by the G7 in 1989 specifically to combat money laundering on a
global scale
[59]
[60].
FATF issued 40 Recommendations that became the blueprint for AML laws
worldwide. After BCCI, many countries strengthened oversight of
international banks: e.g., higher due diligence for cross-border banking
and better cooperation among regulators. The European Community and others
also accelerated banking transparency directives in the 1990s. These
efforts started paying off: banks implemented stricter customer
identification, suspicious activity reporting (SAR) systems, and
cross-border information sharing through entities like the Egmont Group of
financial intelligence units. In sum, the late 20th century marks the era
when money laundering was recognized and attacked as a distinct crime , and banks were conscripted as frontline defenders through laws and global
standards. Financial institutions that once turned a blind eye to illicit
deposits were now required to “know their customer” or face heavy penalties
(as many learned in subsequent decades).
2008 – The $65 Billion Ponzi and Great Recession Frauds
Development: The 2000s saw complex financial engineering and a
housing boom, but also lapses in risk management and ethics. Fraud surfaced
in both high finance (e.g. mortgage-backed securities misrepresentations)
and low finance (predatory lending). As the decade ended in crisis, several
massive frauds came to light, shaking trust further.
Case: The most infamous modern Ponzi scheme was perpetrated by Bernard L. Madoff , a respected financier who ran a secret investment advisory business that
turned out to be a decades-long fraud. When Madoff’s pyramid collapsed in
December 2008, it revealed about $65 billion in fictitious profits and principal in client accounts – the largest Ponzi scheme ever
[61].
Madoff had promised steady ~10% annual returns and fabricated account
statements to clients, all while simply shuffling money. The fraud went
undetected by regulators (despite warnings) for years, exploiting gaps in
oversight between the SEC, FINRA, and international regulators. Around the
same time, another fraudster, Allen Stanford, was exposed for running an $8
billion Ponzi via bogus “high-yield” CDs at his Antigua-based bank. And
beyond Ponzi schemes, the 2008 financial crisis itself had elements
of fraud: banks faced accusations of mis-selling mortgage-backed securities
and a few executives (like at Bear Stearns hedge funds) were tried for
securities fraud (though acquitted). The crisis also uncovered mortgage
fraud on the consumer level – millions of falsified income statements
(“liar loans”) contributed to the housing bubble.
Response: The shock of Madoff led to soul-searching and reform in the
regulatory community. The SEC, embarrassed by missing the scheme,
restructured its examination process, created specialized task forces
(including an Asset Management Unit to scrutinize investment advisors), and
set up a whistleblower office in 2011 to pay rewards for tips – an
acknowledgment that insider information can crack cases that exams miss.
Laws were updated: the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010 expanded SEC powers
and introduced more investor protections. Globally, the Madoff case spurred
other countries to tighten their fund oversight and cooperate more on
cross-border supervision (Madoff had feeder funds and clients worldwide).
On the broader front, the crisis yielded new regulations like the U.S. Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act (FERA) of 2009 , which bolstered resources for prosecuting financial fraud, and the
creation of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission to investigate
wrongdoing that contributed to the meltdown. One clear outcome: a slew of
large banks paid tens of billions in fines and settlements for mortgage and
securities fraud in the following years. The late 2000s taught a harsh
lesson that even in sophisticated markets, basic frauds (Ponzi schemes, false statements) can proliferate if oversight breaks down – and that restoring trust requires
both stronger enforcement and structural reform.
2010s – Cyber Fraud, Hacks, and Crypto Scams
Development: The 2010s saw banking go truly digital – with mobile
apps, instant payments, and cryptocurrencies. This opened new frontiers for
fraud: cyberattacks on banks, online theft of customer data, and
crypto-related scams. The global nature of internet finance meant criminals
from anywhere could target victims everywhere, often anonymously.
Case (Cyber Heist): In February 2016, hackers orchestrated one of the
largest bank robberies in history without stepping foot in a branch.
They broke into Bangladesh Bank’s systems and issued fraudulent instructions
via the SWIFT network to steal $951 million from the bank’s account at the
New York Federal Reserve. While a typo (“fandation” instead of
“foundation”) stopped most of the transfers, $81 million succeeded in reaching accounts in the Philippines
[62]
[63].
The money vanished into the casino industry and hasn’t been fully
recovered. The hack revealed that even central banks could be victims of
cyber fraud, and it exposed weak links in global payment networks. SWIFT
subsequently urged banks to beef up security and launched programs to
certify compliance. Another case: Equifax Hack (2017) – personal
data of 147 million was stolen, fueling identity theft fraud for years. And
as banking went online, account takeovers and phishing attacks on
customers skyrocketed. The FBI reported that in 2021 alone, Americans lost
$2.4 billion to phishing and related scams – the largest category of
cybercrime by victims.
Case (Crypto Fraud): The cryptocurrency boom created a Wild West for
fraudsters. A notable scam was OneCoin (2014–2016), a fake
cryptocurrency run by Ruja Ignatova, the self-styled “Cryptoqueen.” OneCoin
turned out to be a Ponzi scheme without any real blockchain; about 3.5
million victims worldwide invested over $4 billion before it
collapsed
[64]
[65].
Ignatova disappeared in 2017 and remains a fugitive on the FBI’s Most
Wanted list
[66].
Another high-profile case was Bitconnect, a crypto Ponzi that
imploded in 2018 and cost investors $3.5 billion. Additionally, the decade
saw multiple cryptocurrency exchange hacks (Mt. Gox lost ~$450
million in Bitcoin in 2014) and scammers pushing fraudulent Initial Coin
Offerings (ICOs) – by some estimates, over 80% of ICOs in 2017 were scams
or failed projects.
Response: The 2010s forced a paradigm shift: regulators and banks
started treating cyber risks as seriously as traditional fraud. Banks
invested heavily in cybersecurity measures, from multi-factor
authentication for customers to AI-based intrusion detection systems. After
Bangladesh Bank, SWIFT established mandatory security controls for member
banks and created a cyber threat-sharing hub. Regulators issued guidance
and in some cases regulations on cyber hygiene (e.g., NY State’s DFS
cybersecurity rule in 2017 requiring banks to meet specific security
standards). Law enforcement also adapted, creating cyber task forces to
tackle crimes that traverse digital borders. For crypto, by the late 2010s
governments began rolling out crypto-specific rules: e.g.,
anti-money-laundering regulations were extended to crypto exchanges (FinCEN
did so in the US; the EU’s 5th AML Directive did similarly). Several
countries issued investor warnings or bans on certain crypto schemes; and
agencies like the SEC cracked down on fraudulent ICOs, treating many as
unregistered securities. OneCoin’s fallout led Europol and others to
coordinate more on crypto Ponzi investigations, and the fact that Ignatova
was added to the FBI’s Top Ten list in 2022 shows the priority given to
these new-era scammers. By the end of the decade, blockchain analytics firms had emerged, assisting in tracing crypto transactions for law enforcement –
a new toolkit against digital laundering. The overarching lesson: as
finance digitizes, regulations and protective measures must innovate in
tandem. Cyber fraud and crypto scams taught regulators that fraud prevention can no longer be local or analog ; it must be tech-savvy, global, and as decentralized as the threats.
2020s – The Crypto Crash and the AI Frontier
Development: The early 2020s have seen the rise and fall of major
crypto empires and the dawn of widely accessible artificial intelligence.
Decentralized finance (DeFi) and crypto exchanges, some handling tens of
billions in assets, often operated in regulatory grey areas – until
spectacular failures prompted calls for action. Simultaneously, AI tools
(like deepfakes and large language models) grew powerful enough to be
weaponized by scammers, posing new challenges for fraud prevention in
real-time.
Case: In 2022, the collapse of FTX, a leading cryptocurrency
exchange valued at $32 billion, sent shockwaves through the financial world.
FTX’s founder, Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF), was revered in crypto – until it
emerged that customer funds (over $8 billion) were misused to cover
losses at his trading firm, Alameda Research
[67]
[68].
This alleged fraud – essentially using clients’ money as a personal piggy
bank – led to FTX’s bankruptcy in November 2022 and SBF’s arrest. The
scandal vaporized billions in customer assets, affecting over a million
users, and severely dented trust in the crypto industry. It drew parallels
to Enron and Madoff, given the mix of deception and audit failures, and
underscored that crypto institutions can harbor very traditional fraud. In
FTX’s wake, other crypto firms like Celsius and Voyager also collapsed amid
accusations of mismanagement or fraud. Meanwhile, AI-driven fraud stepped up: by 2023, reports showed a surge in deepfake scams, and the FBI
warned that criminals were using deepfake video interviews to penetrate
remote hiring (to then commit insider fraud). One audacious 2023 incident
saw criminals use a deepfake hologram of a company CEO in a video call to
trick employees into transferring funds – a sci-fi level con that was
successful until discovered later.
Response: Regulators worldwide are now sprinting to regulate crypto.
In the U.S., the FTX debacle provoked lawmakers to draft new bills on
crypto exchange oversight, and regulators like the SEC asserted
jurisdiction, charging SBF with securities fraud
[69].
Several countries that were hands-off are enacting rules: the EU approved MiCA (Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation) in 2023 to bring
exchanges and stablecoins under supervision, and many jurisdictions are
implementing stricter custody and reserve requirements for crypto
platforms to prevent another FTX-type misuse of funds. Bank regulators
issued guidelines limiting banks’ exposures to crypto and requiring risk
management for digital assets. On the AI front, financial authorities have
begun addressing AI in fraud and security contexts. For example, FINRA and
the SEC in the US have highlighted the need for firms to guard against
deepfake-related scams and ensure any AI used in finance is fair and
well-governed. Banks themselves are deploying defensive AI: some now use
deepfake detection for video banking and voice biometrics for call
verification, as mentioned earlier. Government agencies have also ramped up
public advisories – the FTC in 2023 released consumer alerts on
“impersonation scams using AI voice clones.” There is even discussion of
requiring watermarking of AI-generated media to help identify fakes. In
essence, the responses of the 2020s are still evolving, but a clear
trajectory is visible: extending the regulatory perimeter to
encompass crypto finance and adopting new tech-centric approaches to combat
AI-enabled fraud. The lessons are fresh: huge frauds can grow in lightly
regulated spaces (be it crypto or AI-driven manipulation), so authorities
are expanding laws and tools to shine light into those corners.
2025 – What about today and tomorrow?
As we move further into the 2020s, banks and regulators alike will need to continuously adapt – the fraudsters certainly will. For instance, ChatGPT's new image generator has demonstrated the capability to create fake receipts with convincing text and formatting. This advancement could potentially be exploited by fraudsters to produce counterfeit documents for deceptive purposes. [70] This risk extends far beyond receipts. As online onboarding becomes the norm in financial services, especially in mobile banking and fintech apps, users are often required to upload images of identity documents — such as passports, driver's licenses, utility bills, or diplomas — to verify who they are. With advanced generative AI tools now capable of producing photorealistic forgeries, bad actors can fabricate entire digital identities or impersonate real people with frightening accuracy.
For instance, a fraudster can now generate a fake passport image complete with realistic fonts, holograms, and watermarks — elements that used to require specialized knowledge or hardware — simply by prompting an AI tool [71]. Combine that with deepfake selfies or AI-generated video clips mimicking someone’s face and voice, and it becomes increasingly difficult for traditional KYC (Know Your Customer) processes to distinguish between a real person and a convincing fraud.
This is especially dangerous in remote onboarding scenarios, where there’s no in-person verification and everything relies on uploaded images and facial recognition. Banks and fintechs are already reporting an uptick in synthetic identity fraud, where criminals blend real and fake information to create seemingly legitimate profiles. Diplomas, employment letters, pay stubs, and bank statements can also be generated or altered, enabling fraudsters to pass background checks for loans, credit, or even job offers in finance — opening the door to insider threats.
Financial regulators are increasingly warning that identity-proofing must evolve beyond static document checks. There’s growing emphasis on multi-factor, behavior-based authentication, AI detection of image manipulation, and collaborations with document-issuing authorities to cross-check authenticity in real-time. But the threat surface is expanding fast — and without robust controls, the era of "upload your ID and you're in" could become an open invitation to sophisticated fraud.
Response: As artificial intelligence (AI) technologies advance, financial institutions are increasingly adopting sophisticated measures to combat AI-generated document fraud in digital onboarding processes. These measures range from widely implemented industry standards to emerging technologies offering additional security layers.
Standard Measures in Use
Liveness Detection and Biometric Verification: To ensure that a live person is present during onboarding, institutions employ liveness detection techniques [72]. Users may be prompted to perform specific actions, such as blinking or head movements, during selfie verification. Companies like Onfido integrate biometric verification technologies into banking apps, guiding users to capture selfies or videos for identity confirmation.
AI-Powered Document Forensics: Advanced AI models are utilized to scrutinize identity documents for signs of tampering, such as inconsistencies in fonts, layouts, or embedded security features. Socure employs computer vision models to detect alterations in document submissions, effectively identifying and preventing the use of fake IDs and stolen identities [73].
Cross-Referencing with External Databases: Financial institutions cross-verify user-submitted information with authoritative external databases, including government records and credit bureaus, to confirm identity authenticity and detect discrepancies indicative of synthetic identities.
Participation in Fraud Intelligence Networks: Organizations collaborate through networks like the Financial Services Information Sharing and Analysis Center (FS-ISAC) to share real-time information on emerging threats, enhancing collective defense mechanisms against cyber threats [74].
Regulatory Guidance on AI and Fraud Prevention: Regulatory bodies, such as the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) provide guidance on addressing AI-driven fraud, including the use of deepfake technologies. FINRA highlights the potential for scammers to create realistic fake content, such as deepfake videos, to manipulate stock prices or promote fraudulent schemes [75].
Emerging Additional Security Measures
Blockchain-Based Verifiable Credentials: This approach involves issuing tamper-proof digital credentials stored on a blockchain, allowing instant verification of documents like diplomas or licenses. Microsoft Entra Verified ID utilizes decentralized identifiers (DIDs) to cryptographically sign credentials, ensuring their authenticity [76].
Cryptographically Signed Identity Documents: Countries like Estonia have implemented digital ID cards that enable secure authentication and digital signing for various e-services [77]. These ID cards are widely accepted by public institutions and preferred by private sector companies for conducting business electronically.
Content Provenance and Watermarking Standards: The Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA) has developed standards to trace the origin and history of digital assets, embedding provenance data to help verify content authenticity and detect AI-generated forgeries [78].
Behavioral Biometrics for Fraud Detection: Technologies like BioCatch analyze user behavior patterns, such as typing dynamics and mouse movements, to detect anomalies that may indicate fraudulent activity. This real-time analysis helps in identifying transactions conducted under the influence of cybercriminals [79].
By integrating these standard and emerging measures, financial institutions can enhance their defenses against the sophisticated threats posed by AI-generated document fraud.
References
Hall, J. (2019). A Voice Deepfake Was Used To Scam A CEO Out Of $243,000 . Forbes. Available: https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnhall/2019/09/01/a-voice-deepfake-was-used-to-scam-a-ceo-out-of-243000/
Rogers, J. (2019). Deepfake Voice Fraud: Scammers Use AI to Mimic CEO’s Voice and Steal $243,000 . Avast. Available: https://blog.avast.com/deepfake-ceo-scam
Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). (2019). Business Email Compromise: The $26 Billion Scam . FBI IC3 Public Service Announcement. Available: https://www.ic3.gov/Media/Y2019/PSA190910
Reuters. (2014). Decades-long ties to Madoff cost JPMorgan $2.6 billion . Reuters, 07-Jan-2014. Available: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-jpmorgan-madoff-settlement/decades-long-ties-to-madoff-cost-jpmorgan-2-6-billion-idUSBREA060JL20140108
ACI Worldwide. (2022). Four reasons banks and financial institutions should fight fraud in real time . ACI Blog. Available: https://www.aciworldwide.com/blog/four-reasons-banks-and-financial-institutions-should-fight-fraud-in-real-time
Galileo Financial Technologies. (2024). How Banks and Fintechs Can Beat Fraudsters in the AI Arms Race . Galileo Blog, 05-Apr-2024. Available: https://www.galileo-ft.com/blog/how-banks-and-fintechs-can-beat-fraudsters-in-the-ai-arms-race/
Investopedia. (2025). America’s First Financial Fraudsters. Available: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/financial-theory/09/history-of-fraud.asp
Simons, T. (2023). Synthetic identity – a new path for government fraud? . Thomson Reuters Insights, 15-Mar-2023. Available: https://legal.thomsonreuters.com/en/insights/articles/synthetic-identity-fraud
[Kimery, A. (2024). Report: Synthetic identity fraud is growing. Biometric Update, 15-Oct-2024. Available: https://www.biometricupdate.com/202410/report-synthetic-identity-fraud-is-growing
U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2022). Estimated Amount of Fraud During Pandemic Likely Between $100 Billion and $135 Billion . GAO-23-106701, 12-Dec-2022. Available: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-106701
FBI. (2020). Money Mules. FBI Common Frauds & Scams. Available: https://www.fbi.gov/how-we-can-help-you/scams-and-safety/common-frauds-and-scams/money-mules
U.S. Department of the Treasury. (2022). U.S. Treasury Sanctions Notorious Virtual Currency Mixer Tornado Cash . Press Release, 08-Aug-2022. Available: https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0916
The Washington Post. (1991). BCCI Scandal: Behind the 'Bank of Crooks and Criminals' . The Washington Post, 28-Jul-1991. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1991/07/28/bcci-scandal-behind-the-bank-of-crooks-and-criminals/563f2216-1180-4094-a13d-fd4955d59435/
U.S. Secret Service. (2021). Worthy of Trust and Confidence – 150+ Years of History . Available: https://www.secretservice.gov/about/history
FinCEN. (n.d.). History of Anti-Money Laundering Laws. U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. Available: https://www.fincen.gov/history-anti-money-laundering-laws
FATF. (2019). History of the FATF. Financial Action Task Force. Available: https://www.fatf-gafi.org/en/historyofthefatf
Monroe, H., Carvajal, A., & Pattillo, C. (2010). Perils of Ponzis . Finance & Development, vol. 47, no. 1, March 2010. International Monetary Fund. Available: https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2010/03/monroe.htm
Historic UK. (n.d.). The South Sea Bubble of 1720. Historic-UK.com. Available: https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/South-Sea-Bubble/
Bubble Act 1720. (1720). (Ann. 6 Geo I) “An Act to restrain the extravagant and unwarrantable Practice of raising Money by voluntary Subscriptions...” (Bubble Act). Available: https://www.lsd.law/browse/index.php/Legislation/UK/1720/6_Geo_1_%28Bubble_Act%29
Reuters. (2018). Danske Bank's 200 billion euro money laundering scandal . Reuters, 19-Nov-2018. Available: https://www.reuters.com/article/danske-bank-moneylaundering-timeline/danske-banks-200-billion-euro-money-laundering-scandal-idUSKCN1NO10D
AML Graph Analysis with FINaplo.AI. Available: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLR0D4Y_oFo5tIOc_cIMdbPI1AESqOYPhR
U.S. Department of Justice (SDNY). (2023). Co-Founder Of Multibillion-Dollar Cryptocurrency Scheme “OneCoin” Sentenced To 20 Years In Prison . Press Release, 12-Sep-2023. Available: https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/co-founder-multibillion-dollar-cryptocurrency-scheme-onecoin-sentenced-20-years-prison
Investopedia. (2023). What Happened to OneCoin, the $4 Billion Crypto Ponzi Scheme? . Available: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/onecoin.asp
Investopedia. (2023). The Collapse of FTX: What Went Wrong With the Crypto Exchange? . Available: https://www.investopedia.com/what-went-wrong-with-ftx-6828447
Convera. (2023). After the fraud: SBF, FTX and the future of crypto regulations . Convera Insights, 07-Feb-2023. Available: https://www.convera.com/learning-center/article/after-fraud-sbf-ftx-and-future-crypto-regulations
FS-ISAC – Fraud Intelligence and Information Sharing. Available: https://www.fsisac.com/
Microsoft Entra Verified ID – Decentralized Identifiers (DIDs). Available: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/entra/verified-id/decentralized-identifier-overview
Estonia e-ID – Digital ID Cards. Available: https://e-estonia.com/solutions/estonian-e-identity/id-card/
Disclaimer: Any mention of a company, product, or service in this document is provided solely for illustrative purposes as an example or use case. These references should not be construed as endorsements, promotions, or recommendations of any kind.