<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2026/10/baas-cover-fraud-loss-ownership_2x1.webp" alt="In a BaaS Stack, Whose Fraud Loss Is It, Really?" title="" id="x6grswgvy" width="100%" height="60">A customer gets defrauded on a neobank app. The app was built by a fintech. The fintech doesn't hold a banking license — it operates under a sponsor bank. The sponsor bank doesn't run the technology stack — that's handled by a Banking-as-a-Service (BaaS) platform sitting in between. The card that was compromised was issued through a program manager. The transaction that moved the money ran over a card network and a processor neither the customer nor, often, the fintech's own support team has direct visibility into.Now ask the obvious question: whose fraud loss is this?In a traditional bank, the answer is uncomfortable but at least clear — it's the bank's, full stop, because the bank is the only regulated entity in the relationship and the customer's contract is with no one else. In a BaaS stack, the honest answer is: it depends on the contract, it depends on which party had operational control at the moment of failure, and in a meaningful share of cases, it depends on who blinks first in the dispute. That's not a regulatory framework. That's a negotiation.This is one of the more uncomfortable open questions in modern financial infrastructure, and it's worth examining directly, because every month that it stays unanswered, more transaction volume flows through stacks where the question hasn't been settled.<h2 class="heading-node" id="7lr4v0tra">The Stack: More Parties Than the Customer Ever Sees</h2>A typical BaaS arrangement for a consumer neobank or embedded finance product involves, at minimum:<ul class="list-node" id="qyifg25jq"><li>The sponsor bank — the regulated, licensed entity whose charter underpins the whole arrangement, legally the entity "providing" the financial service</li><li>The BaaS/infrastructure platform — the technology layer that provides APIs, core banking rails, card issuing processing, ledgering, and often the actual fraud and risk tooling</li><li>The program manager or fintech — the brand the customer actually sees and trusts, who designed the product experience and owns the customer relationship</li><li>The card network — Visa, Mastercard, RuPay, or equivalent, which has its own rulebook on chargeback liability</li><li>The processor — handling authorization and settlement, sometimes a separate entity from the BaaS platform</li><li>Downstream service providers — KYC/identity verification vendors, fraud scoring vendors, dispute management vendors — each potentially a different company again</li></ul>A customer onboarding into this product has a relationship with the fintech brand. Legally, their account is with the sponsor bank. Operationally, their transaction data, fraud scoring, and dispute workflows run through the BaaS platform. None of these three — brand, license holder, and infrastructure operator — necessarily has full visibility into what the other two are doing at the moment a fraud event occurs.This isn't a hypothetical structure drawn up for the sake of argument. It's the default architecture of embedded finance today, in India under the NBFC-fintech co-lending and PPI issuance models, in the US under the sponsor-bank model that's powered most neobanks and embedded finance launches of the last decade, and increasingly across Southeast Asia, the GCC, and Africa as digital-first banking licenses proliferate. The question of who owns fraud risk isn't a corner case. It's the central unresolved question of the entire BaaS category.<h2 class="heading-node" id="jr3nukzcb">Why "The Contract Decides" Isn't a Satisfying Answer</h2>The reflexive answer from most legal and commercial teams is that the contracts between these parties allocate liability, and in a narrow sense, that's true — most BaaS and program agreements do contain indemnification clauses, loss-sharing formulas, and service-level commitments that assign financial responsibility for different fraud scenarios.But this answer breaks down in practice for three reasons.First, contracts are written before the fraud happens, and fraud typologies evolve faster than contract renegotiation cycles. A loss-sharing clause drafted around card-not-present fraud risk in 2022 may say nothing coherent about a 2026 scam where the customer is socially engineered into authorizing their own transaction, moved through a mule account the sponsor bank's own compliance team should arguably have flagged, using a device fingerprint the BaaS platform's fraud engine scored as "unusual" but didn't block. Which clause governs that? Often, none cleanly does — and the parties end up negotiating the specific incident rather than applying a pre-agreed formula.Second, contractual liability and operational control frequently don't line up. The sponsor bank may be contractually on the hook for a category of loss, but the fraud model that failed to catch it was built, tuned, and operated entirely by the BaaS platform, with the bank having limited visibility into its thresholds or decisioning logic. Conversely, the fintech brand — the party the customer trusts and who designed the user experience that may have made the scam more or less likely to succeed — often carries little to no direct financial liability at all, because they're not a regulated entity and their contract with the sponsor bank was deliberately structured to limit their exposure. The party with the most contractual liability is not always the party with the most operational ability to have prevented the loss, and that mismatch is exactly why these disputes drag on.Third, regulators have not caught up to the structure. Most financial regulation — in the US, India, the EU, and most of APAC and MEA — was written with a bilateral mental model: one regulated institution, one customer, one relationship. Outsourcing and third-party risk guidelines (RBI's guidelines on outsourcing of financial services, the EBA's guidelines on outsourcing arrangements, the US OCC and FDIC's third-party risk management guidance) all gesture at the idea that the regulated entity remains accountable for outsourced functions — but "remains accountable" is a supervisory statement about who the regulator will come after, not an operational answer to who absorbs the loss, who built the control that failed, or how four or five companies should coordinate incident response in real time during an active fraud event. The regulatory answer and the commercial answer are different documents, written by different people, for different purposes, and they often don't reconcile cleanly.<h2 class="heading-node" id="xpjxeb4hj">A Concrete Scenario Worth Walking Through</h2>Consider a realistic case: a customer of a BaaS-powered neobank falls victim to a phishing scam and is tricked into authorizing a push payment to a mule account. The transaction passes SCA-equivalent authentication because the customer, under the scammer's instruction, approves it themselves. It passes the fraud model's real-time scoring because the device, location, and amount are all consistent with the customer's normal behavior — the only anomaly is the payee, which was flagged as "new" but not blocked, per the risk threshold the BaaS platform configured by default.Now trace the aftermath:<ul class="list-node" id="y0z893cgh"><li>The fintech brand fields the customer's complaint first, because that's the app the customer opened. It has no direct mechanism to reverse the transaction and limited visibility into the fraud model's decisioning.</li><li>The sponsor bank is the regulated entity responsible for the account and, in most jurisdictions, is the party a regulator or ombudsman will ultimately hold accountable for customer treatment — but it likely didn't configure the specific payee-risk threshold that let the transaction through.</li><li>The BaaS platform owns and operates the fraud model, and may have offered a stricter threshold as a configurable option — one the program never enabled, whether due to cost, conversion-rate concerns, or simply not being flagged as a priority during onboarding.</li><li>The card network or payment rail, if involved, has its own dispute rules, which may or may not cover authorized-but-coerced transactions at all — most do not, by design, since the customer genuinely authorized the payment.</li></ul>Every party in this chain has a partially valid claim that the loss isn't "theirs" alone, and every party also had some sliver of ability to have prevented it. This is precisely why these disputes are frequently resolved through negotiation, internal write-offs, or — worst of all — simply left unresolved, with the customer absorbing the loss because no single party accepts full ownership quickly enough to make them whole.<h2 class="heading-node" id="4cb6t7ab8">Three Structural Reasons This Keeps Happening</h2>1. BaaS is multi-party by design, and no single party owns the full transaction lifecycle. This isn't a bug to be patched — it's the entire value proposition of the model. A bank gets distribution without building consumer product. A fintech gets a banking license without becoming a bank. A BaaS platform monetizes infrastructure instead of owning customer relationships. That division of labor is exactly what makes embedded finance commercially viable — but it also means the full transaction lifecycle, end to end, isn't visible to or controlled by any single entity, which is precisely the condition that makes fraud liability so hard to assign cleanly.2. Regulatory frameworks still presume a bilateral relationship. Virtually every consumer protection and fraud liability regulation on the books — whether it's Regulation E in the US, RBI's customer liability circulars in India, or PSD2/PSD3's liability provisions in the EU — was drafted assuming the customer's financial institution is a single, identifiable, directly accountable entity. These frameworks are only slowly being updated to contemplate multi-party technology stacks, and in the meantime, the gap gets filled by private contracts that were never designed to do the job regulation is supposed to do.3. Commercial incentives push liability downstream rather than toward the party best positioned to prevent the loss. In commercial negotiations between banks, BaaS platforms, and fintechs, liability allocation is a point of leverage, not a principled design exercise. The party with the most negotiating power — frequently the sponsor bank, given its licensing position — tends to push liability toward the parties with less leverage, regardless of which party actually controls the systems that could have prevented the fraud. This produces contracts that are internally consistent and legally enforceable, but structurally disconnected from where operational risk actually sits.<h2 class="heading-node" id="v4aptyex9">What a More Defensible Model Looks Like</h2>None of this means the problem is unsolvable — it means it hasn't been treated as a design question with the seriousness it deserves. A few principles point toward a more defensible structure:Liability should be mapped to operational control, stage by stage. Rather than a single blanket liability clause, BaaS agreements need granular control-mapping: who configures authentication thresholds, who owns fraud model tuning, who monitors real-time alerts, who has authority to freeze a suspicious transaction before settlement. Liability for a given failure mode should sit primarily with whoever had the operational ability to prevent it — not whoever has the weakest negotiating position.Shared, real-time fraud visibility has to replace siloed dashboards. A meaningful share of these disputes exist because the bank, the fintech, and the BaaS platform are each looking at partial data after the fact. A fraud and risk management layer built for multi-party visibility — where the sponsor bank, the program manager, and the infrastructure platform see the same transaction-level risk signals in real time, not reconstructed after a complaint — removes much of the ambiguity about who knew what, when.Incident response needs a predefined, cross-party playbook, not an improvised negotiation. When a scam or account takeover is detected, the question of who freezes funds, who notifies the customer, and who initiates recovery shouldn't be settled contract-clause-by-contract-clause during the incident itself. The institutions handling this well have pre-agreed, tested incident response protocols that span all parties in the stack, triggered automatically by defined fraud signals.Regulators and industry bodies need to keep building multi-party liability guidance, not just bilateral frameworks. Some progress is visible — the UK's Confirmation of Payee and APP fraud reimbursement rules under the PSR, and evolving guidance from US regulators following several high-profile bank-fintech partnership failures, both represent early attempts to address multi-party accountability directly. APAC and MEA regulators drafting open banking and BaaS-specific frameworks have a real opportunity to build this in from the start rather than retrofitting it later.<h2 class="heading-node" id="3weu95n7b">The Bottom Line</h2>The honest answer to "who owns fraud risk in a shared BaaS stack" today is: it's split across several parties, unevenly, inconsistently, and in ways that frequently don't match who actually had the ability to prevent the loss. That's not a satisfying answer, but it's the accurate one, and pretending otherwise — treating a signed indemnification clause as if it resolves the operational question — is exactly how these disputes end up taking months to settle while customers wait for resolution.Getting this right isn't primarily a legal exercise. It's an infrastructure exercise. The institutions that will handle this well are the ones that build — or partner for — fraud and risk systems designed from the outset for multi-party visibility and clear, stage-by-stage control mapping, rather than treating shared liability as something to be resolved after the fact through negotiation.If you're a bank, fintech, or program manager operating in a BaaS stack and this question has come up in a real dispute rather than a hypothetical one, it's worth examining whether your fraud and risk infrastructure actually supports shared visibility and clear control attribution — or whether it's quietly assuming the bilateral model that regulation was built around. <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/frm-aml/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=frm&amp;utm_campaign=oct" target="_blank">M2P's FRM</a> system is built for exactly this multi-party reality, giving every party in a BaaS stack visibility into the same transaction-level risk signals rather than reconstructing them after a dispute. If this is a live question for your organization, <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/contact-us/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=frm&amp;utm_campaign=oct" target="_blank">reach out to M2P</a> to talk through what a clearer ownership model could look like for your stack.

Who Owns Fraud Risk in a Shared Banking-as-a-Service Stack — and Why Nobody's Really Answered This Yet

<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2026/09/3ds_africa_blog_v3_2000x1000-1.webp" alt="3DS in Africa: Building Authentication Right, From the Start" title="" id="na911gquf" width="100%" height="362">Africa's digital payments landscape is expanding faster than almost anywhere else in the world. Mobile money, card issuance, and e-commerce are all growing in tandem, and with that growth comes a parallel rise in card-not-present (CNP) fraud exposure. For banks and fintechs issuing cards across the continent, 3-D Secure (3DS) authentication has moved from a "nice to have" to a foundational requirement — one that directly affects approval rates, chargeback liability, and customer trust.This piece looks at where 3DS adoption in Africa currently stands, the specific challenges issuers face in rolling it out, and where the near-term opportunities lie.<h2 class="heading-node" id="7rj18wg1d">Why 3DS Matters More in Africa Than in Mature Markets</h2>In markets with long-established card infrastructure, 3DS is largely a compliance checkbox layered onto systems that have been in place for years. Africa's issuers are in a different position: many are scaling card programs and digital acquiring in parallel, often leapfrogging legacy rails altogether. This means 3DS isn't being retrofitted — it's being built in as part of a first-generation digital payments stack.That timing is an advantage. Issuers rolling out card programs today can design authentication flows around EMV 3DS 2.x from day one, rather than carrying forward older, less secure implementations. But it also means the ecosystem — scheme rules, regulatory guidance, merchant readiness, and consumer familiarity with step-up authentication — is still maturing at different speeds across markets.<h2 class="heading-node" id="mllq4oqor">Where Adoption Stands Today</h2>3DS adoption across Africa is uneven, shaped by a few consistent factors:<ul class="list-node" id="8cvo97mh7"><li>Regulatory pace varies by country. Some central banks have issued clear guidance on authentication and fraud liability; others are still developing frameworks, leaving issuers to align voluntarily with scheme mandates from Visa and Mastercard.</li><li>Mobile-first usage patterns. A large share of card transactions in Africa originate from mobile browsers or in-app checkouts, which places a premium on ACS platforms that render authentication challenges cleanly across low-bandwidth and lower-spec devices.</li><li>Merchant-side readiness lags issuer-side readiness. Even where issuers have deployed capable ACS platforms, full frictionless-rate benefits depend on merchants and payment gateways correctly implementing 3DS Server and Directory Server integrations on their end.</li><li>Fraud patterns are still being learned. Risk-based authentication engines depend on transaction data to fine-tune frictionless approval rates. Newer card programs have less historical data to draw on, which can mean more conservative (and more challenge-heavy) authentication in the early stages.</li></ul>M2P has worked directly with issuers navigating this environment — including supporting a leading Bank in Nigeria on <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-access-control-servers-securing-the-future-of-digital-payments/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=acs&amp;utm_campaign=4" target="_blank">ACS deployment</a> — and the pattern that emerges is consistent: issuers that treat 3DS as core infrastructure, not a bolt-on, see it pay off in both fraud reduction and customer experience.<h2 class="heading-node" id="2mbdoubrs">The Core Opportunities for Issuers</h2>1. Reducing false declines while managing genuine fraud risk A well-tuned ACS, paired with a fraud and risk management (FRM) layer, allows issuers to move more transactions through frictionless flows without opening themselves up to unnecessary fraud exposure. This is especially valuable in markets where declined-but-legitimate transactions can push customers toward alternative payment methods or competitor banks.2. Strengthening dispute and chargeback positioning Liability shift rules under 3DS give issuers a stronger position in chargeback disputes when authentication has been correctly performed. For issuers scaling card portfolios quickly, this reduces one of the more unpredictable cost centers in card operations.3. Building for multi-network, multi-market growth Many African issuers operate across multiple card schemes and, increasingly, multiple countries. An ACS built to handle Visa, Mastercard, and other network specifications consistently — rather than requiring separate integrations per scheme — simplifies scaling into new markets and new product lines.4. Meeting regulatory expectations proactively Even where local mandates are still developing, issuers that implement robust authentication now are better positioned for future regulatory tightening, and can point to strong authentication practices as a trust signal with both regulators and merchant partners.5. Improving the mobile checkout experience Given how much <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/intelligent-access-control-securing-digital-payments/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=acs&amp;utm_campaign=4" target="_blank">CNP</a> volume in Africa originates on mobile, an ACS designed with mobile-optimized challenge screens directly affects conversion. This is less about compliance and more about commercial outcomes — every unnecessary drop-off at the authentication stage is a transaction lost.<h2 class="heading-node" id="q5o7jkdg7">What This Means for Issuers Evaluating ACS Providers</h2>For banks and fintechs building or upgrading their authentication stack in Africa, the practical questions worth asking an <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/modern-accces-control-server-acs-architecture-guide/" target="_blank">ACS provider</a> include:<ul class="list-node" id="w4ehs4ea9"><li>Does the platform support EMV 3DS 2.x with both frictionless and challenge flows out of the box?</li><li>How does the risk engine perform with limited historical transaction data, and how quickly does it improve as data accumulates?</li><li>Is the challenge experience genuinely optimized for mobile and lower-bandwidth conditions?</li><li>Can the platform scale across multiple card schemes and multiple countries without re-architecture?</li><li>What support exists for local regulatory nuances as frameworks evolve?</li></ul>3DS adoption in Africa is still taking shape, which means the issuers building strong authentication foundations today are the ones best positioned to scale confidently as digital card issuance accelerates across the continent.<hr>M2P Fintech supports issuers across Africa with <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/acs/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=acs-africa&amp;utm_campaign=4" target="_blank">Access Control Server (ACS)</a> infrastructure built for EMV 3DS 2.x, including deployments in a leading Bank in Nigeria. To discuss ACS readiness for your card program, <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/contact-us/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=acs-africa&amp;utm_campaign=4" target="">get in touch</a> with our team.

The State of 3-D Secure Adoption in Africa: Opportunities for Issuers

<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2026/09/pci-dss_blog_banner_2000x1000-1.webp" alt="PCI-DSS 4.0 Is Already Here — Is Your Acquiring Stack Actually Ready?" title="" id="745zsdvvn" width="100%" height="362">If you've spent any time in payments over the last two years, you've heard the acronym everywhere: <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/pci-dss-the-payments-armour/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=pci-dss&amp;utm_campaign=4" target="_blank">PCI-DSS 4.0</a>. For acquirers and Merchant Management System (MMS) providers, this isn't just another compliance checkbox to tick off — it's a fundamental shift in how card data security is designed, implemented, and proven, with direct consequences for merchant onboarding, technology architecture, and the pace at which new payment products can be launched.With the original <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/pci-dss-a-quick-guide-to-its-levels/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=pci-dss&amp;utm_campaign=4" target="_blank">PCI-DSS 4.0</a> deadline of March 2024 behind us, and the final set of "future-dated" requirements becoming mandatory from March 31, 2025, most acquirers and MMS providers are now deep in implementation — or, in some cases, playing catch-up. This blog breaks down what's actually changed, why it matters more for acquirers and MMS providers than for a typical merchant, and how to think about compliance as a competitive advantage rather than a cost center.<h1 class="heading-node" id="gkq36qoik">Why PCI-DSS 4.0 Is a Bigger Deal Than Previous Updates</h1>PCI-DSS has been updated before — 3.0, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2.1 — but those were largely incremental. PCI-DSS 4.0, released by the PCI Security Standards Council, is different in scope and philosophy. It represents the first major overhaul of the standard in nearly a decade, and it was built around three explicit goals:<ol class="list-node" id="z0yqa5g9a"><li>Continue meeting the security needs of the payments industry as threats evolve — particularly around e-skimming, API-based attacks, and cloud-native infrastructure that didn't exist when PCI-DSS 3.2.1 was written.</li><li>Promote security as a continuous process, not a once-a-year audit exercise.</li><li>Add flexibility for organizations using different methods to achieve security objectives — most notably through the new "customized approach" to meeting requirements.</li></ol>For acquirers and MMS providers specifically, this matters more than it does for a single merchant, because you're not managing one card-data environment (CDE) — you're managing (or enabling) card-data environments across potentially thousands of merchants, each with different risk profiles, integration methods, and technical maturity. A change in how PCI-DSS defines scope, authentication, or monitoring doesn't just affect your own infrastructure; it cascades into how you validate, support, and onboard every merchant on your platform.<h1 class="heading-node" id="hdveyd8u0">The Headline Changes That Matter for Acquirers and MMS Providers</h1><h3 class="heading-node" id="jur6xlfjq">1. Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) Is Now Mandatory Everywhere in the CDE</h3>Under PCI-DSS 3.2.1, MFA was required primarily for remote access and administrative access to the cardholder data environment. PCI-DSS 4.0 (Requirement 8.4.2) extends this significantly: MFA is now required for all access into the CDE, not just remote or administrative access — including access by employees, contractors, and third parties from within the internal network.For an acquirer or MMS provider, this means every internal system touching merchant transaction data, settlement records, or card data — from customer support dashboards to internal risk-monitoring tools to developer access on staging environments — needs MFA enforcement, not just the systems your compliance team originally scoped for it.<h3 class="heading-node" id="u8vbthcuc">2. Password Requirements Have Been Strengthened — and Made More Flexible</h3>Minimum password length has increased from seven to twelve characters (Requirement 8.3.6), and passwords must now include both numeric and alphabetic characters. At the same time, PCI-DSS 4.0 allows for alternative authentication mechanisms that meet an equivalent security bar — a nod to the standard's broader "customized approach" philosophy.For acquirers managing merchant-facing portals and dashboards, this requires an audit of every authentication touchpoint — merchant login portals, internal admin consoles, API key management systems — to ensure password policies actually meet the new bar, not just internal IT systems.<h3 class="heading-node" id="51dpknwfq">3. Targeted Risk Analyses Replace Some Fixed Frequencies</h3>One of the more nuanced changes is the shift from rigid, prescribed frequencies for certain security activities (e.g., "quarterly," "annually") to a framework where organizations can define their own frequency for specific requirements, provided they can justify it through a targeted risk analysis (Requirement 12.3.1).This sounds like it reduces burden, but in practice it shifts the burden from "do the task on schedule" to "prove, with a documented risk analysis, that your chosen schedule is defensible." For an MMS provider managing security processes across a large merchant portfolio, this means building (and maintaining) risk analysis documentation that a QSA (Qualified Security Assessor) can actually validate — not just picking a convenient interval and hoping it holds up in an audit.<h3 class="heading-node" id="x5i77rrnm">4. E-Commerce and Phishing-Related Requirements Have Expanded Significantly</h3>Given the rise in e-skimming attacks (malicious JavaScript injected into payment pages to steal card data at the point of entry), PCI-DSS 4.0 introduces two requirements specifically targeting this vector:<ul class="list-node" id="t2o7s944h"><li>Requirement 6.4.3: All payment page scripts that are loaded and executed in the consumer's browser must be managed — inventoried, justified for business need, and monitored for unauthorized changes.</li><li>Requirement 11.6.1: A change and tamper-detection mechanism must be deployed to alert on unauthorized modifications to HTTP headers and the content of payment pages, with alerts at least weekly.</li></ul>For acquirers and MMS providers who process card-not-present transactions — the majority of e-commerce merchant volume today — this is one of the most operationally demanding new requirements. It requires script inventory management and integrity monitoring across every merchant's payment page, which for a platform serving thousands of merchants means building this as a managed, scalable service rather than a manual, merchant-by-merchant exercise.<h3 class="heading-node" id="pqq4iew47">5. Phishing-Resistant Authentication Is Explicitly Called Out</h3>PCI-DSS 4.0 formally recognizes that not all MFA is equally secure — SMS-based OTPs, for instance, are vulnerable to SIM-swapping and interception in ways that hardware security keys or authenticator apps are not. While not universally mandated, the standard's emphasis on phishing-resistant authentication methods for higher-risk access points signals where the bar is heading, and acquirers building for the next several years of compliance should architect toward this now rather than retrofitting later.<h3 class="heading-node" id="mcuz4ufpz">6. Expanded Scope for Cloud, Container, and Microservices Environments</h3>PCI-DSS 4.0 was explicitly designed with modern infrastructure in mind — containerized deployments, microservices architectures, and cloud-native environments that barely existed in a meaningful way when 3.2.1 was written. This matters enormously for MMS providers, most of whom have built (or are building) their platforms on exactly this kind of infrastructure to achieve the speed and scalability that differentiates a modern acquiring stack from a legacy one.The updated standard requires clearer scoping methodology for these environments — understanding which containers, services, and cloud components touch cardholder data even transiently, and ensuring segmentation controls are validated in environments where infrastructure can spin up and down dynamically. Acquirers running on legacy, static infrastructure may find this section easier to interpret but harder to justify avoiding modernization; MMS providers on cloud-native stacks get more precise scoping tools, but need to invest in continuous compliance validation rather than point-in-time audits.<h3 class="heading-node" id="uuphqg8o6">7. The "Customized Approach" — A New Way to Demonstrate Compliance</h3>Perhaps the most philosophically significant change in PCI-DSS 4.0 is the introduction of the customized approach as an alternative to the traditional "defined approach" for meeting many requirements. Instead of following the prescribed control exactly as written, organizations can design and implement their own control, provided they can demonstrate — through rigorous documentation and testing — that it meets the underlying security objective just as effectively.This is a meaningful opportunity for MMS providers with genuinely sophisticated security engineering capability: it allows compliance architecture to be built around how your platform actually works, rather than forcing your architecture to conform to a one-size-fits-all control. But it comes with a real cost — customized approach validation requires significantly more documentation, a formal risk analysis for each customized control, and a QSA with the expertise to assess it properly. For most acquirers and MMS providers, the defined approach remains the practical default, with the customized approach reserved for specific areas where platform architecture genuinely diverges from what the standard's prescribed controls assume.<h1 class="heading-node" id="ba1pbh5js">Why This Matters More for Acquirers and MMS Providers Than for a Single Merchant</h1>A single merchant needs to secure one, reasonably well-understood card data environment. An acquirer or MMS provider is, in effect, responsible for the compliance posture of an entire ecosystem — sometimes directly (as a service provider validating its own infrastructure), and sometimes indirectly (by enabling and supporting merchant compliance across a diverse portfolio).This creates a few distinct pressures:Portfolio-wide scope complexity. Every merchant integration method — hosted payment pages, direct API integration, SDK-based mobile acceptance, POS terminal integration — creates a different PCI-DSS scoping boundary. An MMS provider supporting all of these needs a scoping methodology sophisticated enough to correctly classify each merchant's environment, not a single blanket policy.Service provider-level validation requirements. As a Level 1 service provider (the classification acquirers and MMS platforms typically fall under), the validation bar is the highest in the standard — a full Report on Compliance (RoC) by a QSA, not a Self-Assessment Questionnaire (SAQ). This means every one of the changes above needs to be demonstrably implemented and evidenced, not just self-attested.Merchant enablement responsibility. Many merchants — particularly SMEs — rely heavily on their acquirer or MMS provider's platform to inherit compliance rather than build it themselves (for instance, through PCI-compliant hosted payment pages that keep the merchant largely out of PCI scope). This means the acquirer's own compliance posture directly determines how much compliance burden merchants face — a genuine differentiator in a market where merchants increasingly choose acquiring partners based on how little compliance work they have to do themselves.Continuous compliance, not annual compliance. PCI-DSS 4.0's emphasis on continuous monitoring (script integrity checks, targeted risk analyses, ongoing vulnerability management) means the old model of "get audited once a year and move on" no longer holds. Acquirers and MMS providers need compliance to be an operational capability embedded in the platform, not a periodic project.<h1 class="heading-node" id="v06jy9geb">A Practical Path Forward: What Acquirers and MMS Providers Should Actually Do</h1>1. Run a gap assessment against the full 4.0 requirement set — not just the future-dated ones. Many organizations focused their initial 4.0 efforts on the requirements that became mandatory in March 2024, then treated the March 2025 future-dated requirements as a separate, later project. By now, both sets are in effect, and a genuine gap assessment across the complete standard is essential if this hasn't already been done comprehensively.2. Prioritize e-commerce script and tamper-detection requirements early. Given how operationally intensive Requirements 6.4.3 and 11.6.1 are to implement at scale across a merchant portfolio, these deserve early, dedicated engineering investment rather than being treated as a checkbox exercise near an audit deadline.3. Build MFA and authentication controls as platform-wide, not system-by-system. Given how broadly Requirement 8.4.2 now applies, retrofitting MFA system-by-system as gaps are discovered is inefficient. A platform-wide identity and access management approach, applied consistently across every system touching the CDE, is far more defensible in an audit and far less operationally painful to maintain.4. Treat targeted risk analyses as a genuine documentation discipline, not a formality. If you're using the flexibility PCI-DSS 4.0 offers around setting your own frequencies for certain controls, invest in rigorous, well-documented risk analysis methodology. A QSA will test whether your reasoning holds up — and weak documentation here is one of the more common reasons organizations fail this part of an assessment.5. Evaluate whether the customized approach is worth pursuing for any specific control. For most organizations, it isn't — the documentation and validation overhead is substantial. But for specific areas where your platform's architecture is genuinely more advanced than what the defined approach assumes, it can be worth the investment, particularly if it removes friction elsewhere in your compliance program.6. Make merchant compliance enablement part of your product roadmap, not just your legal team's remit. The acquirers and MMS providers who will win merchant loyalty over the next several years are the ones who treat PCI-DSS 4.0 as an opportunity to reduce merchant compliance burden — through compliant hosted payment pages, tokenization, and pre-validated integration methods — rather than simply passing the compliance requirement down to merchants unchanged.<h1 class="heading-node" id="6u3ers8a3">The Bigger Picture: Compliance as Infrastructure, Not Overhead</h1>It's tempting to view PCI-DSS 4.0 purely as a cost of doing business — another set of controls to implement, document, and prove. But for acquirers and MMS providers, compliance posture is increasingly a genuine point of competitive differentiation. Merchants evaluating acquiring partners are asking sharper questions than they used to: How much of the PCI burden do you take off my plate? How quickly can I integrate in a way that keeps me out of scope? How resilient is your platform against the e-skimming and API-based attacks that keep showing up in breach reports?An acquirer or MMS provider that has built PCI-DSS 4.0 compliance deeply into its platform architecture — rather than bolting it on as a parallel compliance project — can answer these questions convincingly, turning what looks like a regulatory burden into a genuine merchant acquisition and retention advantage.<h1 class="heading-node" id="y97rs8mjw">Explore M2P's MMS</h1>Navigating PCI-DSS 4.0 doesn't need to mean slowing down your acquiring business or diverting your engineering roadmap for a year. M2P's <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/merchant-acquiring-solutions/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=pci-dss&amp;utm_campaign=4" target="_blank">Merchant Management System</a> is built with modern, continuously validated security architecture at its core — from platform-wide authentication controls to merchant onboarding flows designed to minimize PCI scope from day one — so banks, NBFCs, and PSPs can meet the highest compliance bar without sacrificing the speed and merchant experience that keeps them competitive.Explore M2P's MMS to see how compliance-ready infrastructure can power your acquiring business — <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/contact-us/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=pci-dss&amp;utm_campaign=4" target="_blank">reach out to M2P</a> today.

Navigating PCI-DSS 4.0 Compliance as an Acquirer or MMS Provider

<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2026/09/m2p_kyc_suite_creative_2000x1000.webp" alt="CKYC, eKYC, Video KYC — Explained. Consolidated. Compliant." title="" id="1g0aimrri" width="100%" height="362">Every bank, NBFC, fintech, insurer, and increasingly every government service desk in India runs on the same underlying question: is this person who they say they are? The answer used to take days and a stack of photocopies. Today, it's expected to take seconds — without compromising on compliance, fraud prevention, or customer experience.That shift is why "KYC software" has become one of the most searched terms in Indian BFSI technology procurement. But the term hides a lot of complexity. Search for it and you'll find a dozen vendors, a dozen acronyms — CKYC, eKYC, VKYC, AUA, KUA — and very little that actually explains how these pieces fit together, what to look for before buying, or what problems still don't have great answers.This guide is meant to be the reference point. It covers what KYC software actually is, the components that make up a complete stack, the evaluation questions most buyers don't think to ask, the compliance landscape it has to operate inside, and where the category is headed next.<h2 class="heading-node" id="9wni4ji28">What Is KYC Software, Exactly?</h2>KYC(Know Your Customer) is a regulatory requirement, not a product. KYC software is the technology layer that lets a regulated institution meet that requirement digitally: capturing a customer's identity, verifying it against authoritative sources, checking it for fraud or tampering, and maintaining an auditable record, all without a human being physically checking a photocopy of a PAN card.In India, this has a specific technical shape because of two connected but distinct government identity infrastructures:<ul class="list-node" id="mi30ir1k1"><li>CKYC (Central KYC Registry) — a central repository (maintained by CERSAI) that stores KYC records once and lets any regulated entity retrieve them instantly, rather than re-collecting the same documents every time a customer opens a new account elsewhere.</li><li>Aadhaar-based eKYC — verification against UIDAI's Aadhaar database, accessed through licensed AUA/KUA (Authentication User Agency / KYC User Agency) integrations.</li></ul>Everything else in a modern KYC software stack — video verification, document OCR, biometric matching, fraud scoring, masking — exists to make those two verification paths faster, more secure, and usable across more channels (web, app, branch, call centre, kiosk).<h1 class="heading-node" id="1klysmv0w">The Components of a Complete KYC Software Stack</h1>If you're evaluating KYC software for the first time, the acronyms are the first wall you hit. Here's what each piece actually does and when you need it — because in practice, most institutions need several of these working together, not just one.<h2 class="heading-node" id="bvuq852ab">CKYC Retrieval</h2>Pulls a customer's existing KYC record using their OVD (officially valid document) number, date of birth, and mobile number. If the customer has ever completed KYC anywhere in the regulated financial system, this can complete onboarding almost instantly — no fresh document upload needed. This is usually the first check a well-designed KYC software flow should attempt, since it's the fastest and cheapest path when it hits.<h2 class="heading-node" id="hphmnisyx">Aadhaar eKYC (AUA/KUA)</h2>When there's no CKYC record to retrieve, Aadhaar-based authentication is the next layer — verifying identity via OTP, fingerprint, face, or iris, and fetching demographic data (name, DOB, address, photograph) directly from UIDAI. This requires the vendor to hold live AUA/KUA licensing, not just claim "Aadhaar integration" — a distinction worth confirming during vendor evaluation, since sub-licensing arrangements vary in reliability and audit-readiness.<h2 class="heading-node" id="rvlxo8k65">Video KYC (VKYC)</h2>RBI's video-based customer identification process (V-CIP) allows fully remote, branch-free onboarding — a human or AI-assisted agent verifies the customer's live video, checks document authenticity, and confirms liveness, all in one session. This matters enormously for lenders and neobanks trying to acquire customers in geographies where opening a physical branch isn't viable, and for institutions that need to serve customers without reliable Aadhaar OTP access (NRIs, elderly customers, low-connectivity regions).<h2 class="heading-node" id="wz3dugzb1">Min-KYC</h2>A lesser-known but increasingly important option: a CKYC-driven onboarding path that doesn't require Aadhaar verification at all. This exists for use cases where full KYC can be completed later (e.g., certain prepaid instruments, small-value accounts) and matters for products that need to go to market fast, in geographies or customer segments where Aadhaar-linked onboarding adds friction or isn't the ideal first step. It's rarely discussed in KYC software marketing, but it's often the fastest, cheapest onboarding path available for eligible use cases.<h2 class="heading-node" id="mwda25dsb">Instant Background Verification</h2>Beyond identity, many onboarding flows also need to check employment history, court records, and address — particularly for lending, hiring, and high-value account opening. Paperless, consent-driven background checks reduce this from a multi-day manual process to something that runs inline with digital onboarding.<h2 class="heading-node" id="45un4891s">Aadhaar Masking</h2>A narrower but non-negotiable requirement under UIDAI rules: any entity storing or displaying Aadhaar numbers must mask the first eight digits. Good KYC software handles this automatically and extends it to custom document formats — not just standard Aadhaar cards — since institutions often need to mask Aadhaar numbers embedded in other scanned documents too.<h2 class="heading-node" id="bld62nlcj">Identity Microservices</h2>For engineering teams building bespoke onboarding flows rather than adopting an off-the-shelf journey, granular APIs matter more than a packaged UI: liveness detection, OCR extraction, face match, GST/KYB (Know Your Business) checks, crime record checks, and AML screening as individually callable services. This is the layer that lets a product team compose their own flow instead of being boxed into a vendor's default journey.<h1 class="heading-node" id="evsu6w33e">What to Actually Evaluate Before Buying KYC Software</h1>Most KYC software comparisons stop at "does it do Aadhaar eKYC and Video KYC." That's table stakes. The questions that actually differentiate vendors — and that most vendor pages, including product pages across the industry, don't answer clearly — are these:1. Fraud detection accuracy, not just fraud detection claims. Almost every vendor claims "AI-powered fraud detection." Few publish what that means in practice: false-positive rates, spoofed-image detection accuracy, deepfake resilience for video KYC, and how forensic checks perform against real attack patterns (photo-of-photo, screen replay, synthetic identity documents). When evaluating a KYC software vendor, ask for these numbers directly, or for reference customers who can speak to fraud outcomes post-implementation — not just onboarding-speed outcomes.2. On-premise vs. cloud availability. Cloud-only KYC software is the default assumption in most vendor pitches, but it's a dealbreaker for public sector institutions, PSU banks, and any entity with data-residency or air-gapped infrastructure mandates. A vendor that genuinely supports both cloud and on-premise deployment — not just "can be discussed" — is solving a real, underserved requirement.3. Total cost of ownership, beyond the per-transaction rate. Per-verification pricing is easy to compare; what's harder to see upfront is the cost of integration effort, the cost of maintaining compliance as regulations change, and the operational cost of handling verification failures and manual review queues. A lower headline rate with a higher failure/fallback rate can cost more in practice. Ask vendors for real fallback-rate and manual-review-rate data, not just headline accuracy claims.4. Coverage beyond Aadhaar, if you operate outside India or serve NRI/foreign-national customers. Aadhaar-centric KYC software is built for the Indian resident use case. If your institution serves NRIs, foreign nationals, or operates in other markets, ask explicitly how the platform handles non-Aadhaar identity documents (passports, foreign national IDs) and whether that capability is native or requires a separate integration. This is a genuine gap across most Indian KYC software vendor pages, ours included as of today — and one worth pressing on directly in RFPs, since the answer varies a lot between vendors who've actually built for it and vendors who haven't.5. Compliance depth: RBI Master Direction, UIDAI audit checklist, and DPDP Act. KYC software doesn't operate in a compliance vacuum. It needs to satisfy RBI's KYC Master Direction (record-keeping, risk categorization, periodic updation), UIDAI's audit checklist for any Aadhaar-linked processing, and increasingly, the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Act's consent and data-minimisation requirements. Ask any vendor how their audit trail, consent logging, and data retention policies map to all three — not just RBI.6. Low-code/no-code configurability vs. rigid pre-built flows. Institutions with in-house product teams often want to configure onboarding journeys — reordering steps, adding conditional logic, swapping verification methods by customer segment — without a fresh engineering sprint every time. Whether a KYC software platform offers genuine no-code workflow building, or just customization via vendor professional services, materially changes how fast you can iterate post-launch.<h1 class="heading-node" id="mkkhxutgo">Why Institutions Are Consolidating Toward a Single KYC Software Suite</h1>A pattern worth naming explicitly: most institutions didn't set out to buy "a KYC suite." They bought Aadhaar eKYC from one vendor, added Video KYC from another when RBI's V-CIP norms landed, bolted on a background-verification tool for lending use cases, and built Aadhaar masking in-house or through a fourth integration.The result, a few years in, is a fragmented identity stack: multiple vendor contracts, multiple compliance audits, multiple points of integration failure, and no single, coherent view of a customer's verification history across products.Consolidating onto a single KYC software platform — one that covers CKYC, Aadhaar eKYC, Video KYC, Min-KYC, masking, background verification, and identity microservices under one contract, one dashboard, and one audit trail — isn't just a cost play. It removes the integration overhead of maintaining multiple vendor relationships, gives compliance teams one place to pull audit records from, and lets product teams reuse the same identity infrastructure across new products (lending, cards, neobanking, merchant onboarding) instead of re-procuring for each one.<h1 class="heading-node" id="in1nf1hdi">Where KYC Software Is Headed</h1>A few shifts worth watching over the next few years:<ul class="list-node" id="odv04qucp"><li>Agentic AI in verification workflows. Beyond rules-based fraud flags, AI models that can reason across a full onboarding session — cross-referencing document data, liveness signals, and behavioural patterns — are starting to move from research to production in identity verification.</li><li>Deeper video KYC automation. Fully AI-assisted VKYC sessions (reducing dependency on live human agents for routine cases, while retaining human review for edge cases) are becoming a genuine efficiency lever for high-volume onboarding.</li><li>Convergence with AML and fraud monitoring. KYC software and fraud/AML systems have historically been separate purchases; the operational logic for combining them — shared identity signals, shared risk scoring — is increasingly hard to ignore.</li><li>Government and public-sector adoption. Digital identity verification is expanding well beyond BFSI into direct citizen service delivery, welfare disbursement, and public-sector onboarding — a segment most KYC software vendors aren't built to serve at that scale or compliance bar.</li></ul><h1 class="heading-node" id="7im0ydgyj">Where M2P's KYC Suite Fits</h1>M2P's <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/kyc-suite/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=kyc&amp;utm_campaign=suite" target="_blank">KYC Suite</a> is built around the consolidation logic described above — CKYC retrieval, Aadhaar-based AUA/KUA authentication, Video KYC (available on both cloud and on-premise), Min-KYC, Aadhaar masking, instant background verification, and identity microservices, all accessible through a single low-code/no-code platform with one audit trail.It's currently used by 75+ BFSI institutions and 5 state governments, processing 3.8 billion digital identification transactions and 10–13 million verifications a day — a scale that reflects both consumer fintech and public-sector deployment, which is a meaningfully different bar than consumer-only KYC software vendors are built to clear.If you're a bank, NBFC, fintech, or government body evaluating what to consolidate onto — or simply trying to move past the CKYC-vs-eKYC-vs-VKYC confusion this guide opened with — it's worth a closer look at the KYC Suite and a <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/contact-us/?utm_source=blg&amp;utm_medium=kyc&amp;utm_campaign=suite" target="_blank">conversation with the team</a> about which modules map to your actual onboarding gaps.

M2P's AI-Powered KYC Suite: A Complete Guide to Digital Identity Verification, Compliance, and Onboarding at Scale

The Widest Infrastructure Stack in Banking & Fintech: Every Product, Every AI Agent, One Platform

Global Fraud Regulations in 2026: What Compliance Teams Must Know

Navigating the New Wave of Digital Fraud: A Global Perspective on FINMA's Latest Guidelines

<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2026/05/compliance-didnt-ask-for-it_blog_v1_2_2000x1000.webp" alt="Compliance Didn’t Ask for It — But Regulators Now Expect Smarter Risk Systems" title="" id="vbybj9xgo" width="100%" height="362">The ground is shifting beneath the feet of compliance officers. For years, the mantra was "follow the process". A meticulously documented, consistently applied compliance process was the shield against regulatory scrutiny. But that shield is proving increasingly ineffective against today's sophisticated threats.&nbsp;Regulators, grappling with a surge in financial crime, are now operating under a new, unspoken assumption, that regulated entities are leveraging advanced technology to manage risk. The focus is shifting from procedural diligence to demonstrable outcomes. This is a quiet but profound revolution, and firms that fail to adapt will find themselves exposed.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="fi35u0ttk" style="text-align: left">From Procedural to Outcome-Based Oversight&nbsp;</h2>The era of "tick-the-box" compliance is over. Regulators are less interested in how you follow a process and more interested in the result. Are you effectively preventing money laundering? Are you protecting your customers from fraud in real-time? These are the questions that matter, and a paper-based, manual framework cannot provide satisfactory answers.&nbsp;The scale of the problem is staggering. In India, the banking sector recorded <a class="link" href="https://rmaindia.org/bank-fraud-losses-surge-to-%E2%82%B936014-cr-despite-drop-in-cases-rbi/" target="_blank">fraud-related losses of ₹36,014 crore</a> in FY 2024–25, a steep 194% surge from the previous year. In response, the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has explicitly called on financial institutions to adopt advanced fraud-detection systems powered by artificial intelligence and machine learning to strengthen security. The message is clear, the expectation has been set.&nbsp;<h4 class="heading-node" id="a4tq9czyf" style="text-align: left">"We Followed the Process" is no longer Defensible</h4>Claiming you "followed the process" after a significant compliance failure is like saying you were looking at the map while driving into a ditch. In this new environment, it’s a defense that is unlikely to garner much sympathy.&nbsp;Financial crime has become a high-tech enterprise. Fraudsters use deep-fake voice scams, synthetic identities, and automated account takeovers that bypass traditional, rule-based defenses. Legacy systems are simply not equipped to handle the speed, volume, and complexity of modern threats. They suffer from fragmented data, slow response times, and an unacceptably high rate of false positives, which damages the customer experience.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="n3hw5wfrr" style="text-align: left">The Rise of Tech-Enabled Audits and Model Governance&nbsp;</h2>This new regulatory expectation is also changing the nature of audits. Tech-enabled audits are rapidly becoming the norm, with regulators using AI to analyze entire datasets for anomalies. As firms adopt their own advanced technologies, a new area of focus is emerging: model governance. If you are using an AI model to make risk decisions, you must be able to explain how it works, prove its accuracy, and ensure it is free from bias.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="hc0sq9dpt" style="text-align: left">M2P's FRM: Your Regulatory Insurance in a Tech-Driven World&nbsp;</h2>Navigating this new landscape requires a strategic shift from reactive defense to proactive, intelligent risk management. This is where M2P's <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/how-m2ps-ai-powered-fraud-risk-monitoring-frm-is-transforming-fraud-detection-for-financial-institutions/" target="">AI-powered Fraud and Risk Management (FRM)</a> solution comes in. It's not just a compliance tool; it's the regulatory insurance your institution needs to thrive in the digital age.&nbsp;M2P’s FRM platform is built to address the core challenges financial institutions face today, aligning perfectly with the new regulatory expectations.&nbsp;<table class="border-collapse border border-gray-300" style="min-width: 50px"><colgroup><col style="min-width: 25px"><col style="min-width: 25px"></colgroup><tbody><tr class="border border-gray-300"><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Challenge&nbsp;</td><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">How M2P's FRM Provides the Solution&nbsp;</td></tr><tr class="border border-gray-300"><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Fragmented Systems &amp; Data Silos&nbsp;</td><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Our platform unifies fraud detection across all channels—including cards, UPI, BNPL, and core banking—to create a single source of truth for risk insights. This eliminates the gaps fraudsters exploit between disparate systems.&nbsp;</td></tr><tr class="border border-gray-300"><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Slow, Reactive Detection&nbsp;</td><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">In a world where milliseconds matter, our FRM enables sub-400 millisecond response times. It uses advanced machine learning to apply risk assessments and detect anomalies in real-time, before a fraudulent transaction completes.&nbsp;</td></tr><tr class="border border-gray-300"><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">High False Positives &amp; Poor Customer Experience&nbsp;</td><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Traditional systems generate high false-positive rates (sometimes up to 40%), frustrating legitimate customers. Our AI/ML models achieve an average detection accuracy of 96.4% and reduce false positives to just 5.2%, ensuring genuine customers have a frictionless experience.&nbsp;</td></tr><tr class="border border-gray-300"><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Inflexible &amp; Slow Rule Management&nbsp;</td><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Legacy systems require vendor dependency for rule changes. Our FRM empowers risk teams with a self-service Business Rules Engine (BRE), enabling them to design, test, and deploy new rules instantly without any coding.&nbsp;</td></tr><tr class="border border-gray-300"><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Weak Authentication &amp; Manual Case Tracking&nbsp;</td><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">We strengthen security with Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) and behavioral biometrics, analyzing patterns like typing cadence and mouse movements. Our integrated Case Management module automates tracking, allocation, and resolution workflows, providing full visibility and accountability.&nbsp;</td></tr><tr class="border border-gray-300"><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Limited Insights &amp; Reporting&nbsp;</td><td class="border border-gray-300 p-2" colspan="1" rowspan="1">Our platform delivers actionable dashboards and comprehensive reports on fraud trends, rule performance, and operational metrics. This empowers your team to make data-backed decisions and prepare for audits with confidence.&nbsp;</td></tr></tbody></table> &nbsp;&nbsp;The message from regulators is unequivocal: the old ways of <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/blog/the-rising-threat-of-financial-fraud-why-robust-risk-management-is-essential/" target="_blank">managing risk</a> are no longer acceptable. In a world of increasingly sophisticated financial crime, leveraging advanced technology is not just an option; it's a fundamental requirement. By embracing a tech-driven approach, you can not only meet your regulatory obligations but also enhance operational efficiency, improve the customer experience, and protect your bottom line.&nbsp;Ready to future-proof your compliance and risk strategy?Explore <a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/contact-us/?utm_source=blog&amp;utm_medium=web&amp;utm_campaign=frm" target="">M2P's Fraud and Risk Management (FRM)</a> solution today to turn your regulatory obligations into a competitive advantage.

Compliance Didn’t Ask for It — But Regulators Now Expect Smarter Risk Systems

<img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/m2p-website-file/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2023/06/FRM-Blog-Banner-2-1-2.webp" alt="M2P Fintech" title="" width="100%" height="383"><ul class="list-node" id="bbuv8bhp5"><li>Over 95,000 UPI fraud cases were reported in 2022-23.</li><li>More than 42% of Indians experienced financial crimes.</li><li>95% of Indian firms experienced new types of cyber frauds.</li></ul>Cyber frauds are surging every day.&nbsp; You may have experienced it, or you would have come across a cyber fraud victim. Living in an era of the highest technological sophistication and still falling prey to cyber frauds sounds like an irony.&nbsp;The global digital payments market is expected to grow at 15.5% and reach $111 billion in 2023 and hit $198 billion by 2027. Payment modes such as UPI, credit/debit cards, digital wallets, and other contactless modes have gained a lot of prominence due to their speed, convenience, and security. Despite phenomenal advances, cyber frauds in the form of phishing, spamming, SIM swapping, account takeover frauds, etc., increase by the minute. Hackers are evolving with technology and adopting sophisticated strategies to infiltrate banking infrastructure and commit cybercrime.&nbsp;This is why organizations need a robust Fraud and Risk Management (FRM) system to defend against data theft, breaches, and other forms of cybercrimes. Before getting into the details, let's first understand what is fraud and risk management.<h2 class="heading-node" id="k1k07wioo">What is Fraud and Risk Management?&nbsp;</h2>Fraud Risk Management is a systematic approach to reduce frauds, especially transaction related. It encompasses identifying, managing, and mitigating breaches in addition to preventing frauds and risks. Businesses that include financial institutions, ecommerce companies, healthcare providers, government agencies, and insurance companies, use FRM systems to combat risks associated with digital transactions.In this blog, we'll discuss how to design an FRM system and best practices to follow while designing. Before diving into it, let us go through the usual cyber frauds because knowing how hackers function can help you create an FRM system capable enough to handle those frauds.Here we go!&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="nm6kjndnr">Types of Cyber Fraud&nbsp;</h2><img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/m2p-website-file/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2023/06/Design-request-for-FRM-blog_2_V2-1.webp" alt="M2P Fintech" title="" width="100%" height="223"><h3 class="heading-node" id="u16fnp09p">Account Takeover (ATO) Frauds &nbsp;</h3>Account takeover fraud occurs when hackers gain unauthorized access to a victim's online account and take control, often without their knowledge or consent.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3 class="heading-node" id="29imu321k">Phishing&nbsp;</h3>Phishing is an attacking method used in ATO where the hacker sends an email to a user posing as a genuine entity. The user gets tricked by believing the email to be legitimate and discloses their private information.&nbsp;<h3 class="heading-node" id="mdhb5jdk8">Brute-force Attack&nbsp;</h3>Hackers try a combination of username/password on multiple accounts till they crack into a user’s account.&nbsp;<h3 class="heading-node" id="1qp070zis">SIM Swap and Device-related Fraud&nbsp;</h3>SIM swap is a technique used by fraudsters to get control of a user’s phone number. By controlling the phone number, hackers can take advantage of two-factor authentication to access the user's devices, their bank accounts, social media accounts, and more.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="m1sj54yqb">Authentication Protocols to the Rescue</h2>Most organizations have some sort of strategy to defend themselves from frauds. Some organizations use a proper FRM system, some follow stringent security protocols such as 3-D Secure Authentication (3DS) and Two-Factor Authentication (2FA) as an additional security layer. But the deployment of these security protocols depends on the marketplace. Many markets (such as the United States) do not use 3DS because they prefer customer convenience over security. This may lead to frauds unless strong controls are in place. On the other hand, in markets such as India where there is a mandate for 2FA, fraudsters still persuade gullible customers to share OTPs. Not taking requisite measures can give fraudsters access to stolen card credentials. They try their luck at different merchants to see if they can go through and bypass risk controls.&nbsp;The best way to battle cyber frauds is to design a risk engine capable of not only identifying existing frauds but also new ones.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="drco1veje">How can you Design a Robust FRM to Tackle Fraud?</h2><ul class="list-node" id="08lc91nt7"><li>Accessing requisite data</li><li>Introducing the right balance between frictionless flows and challenges</li><li>Interfacing FRM with external systems</li><li>Embracing advanced risk checks</li><li>Adopting a combination of rules and models</li></ul><h3 class="heading-node" id="akzmswrji">Accessing Requisite Data&nbsp;</h3>In this data-driven world where frauds are mutating in novel ways like the Corona virus, we need requisite data to develop an efficient and holistic FRM system.&nbsp;<h4 class="heading-node" id="ph9lh45q3">Types of data we need for fraud management&nbsp;</h4><h5 class="heading-node" id="7t9bcfucg">Transaction data&nbsp;</h5>All financial data related to digital transactions, including credit card transactions, bank transfers, wire transfers, etc. This data must include the transaction amount, date, time, location, and other details. This data is used to build a historical profile of the customer.&nbsp;<h5 class="heading-node" id="8p7zx77jg">User data&nbsp;</h5>User information such as name, address, phone number, email address, employment, income, credit history, etc.&nbsp;<h5 class="heading-node" id="sohlvxzkd">Device data&nbsp;</h5>Device type, operating system, browser type, and other technical details.&nbsp;<h5 class="heading-node" id="1749otx7p">Geolocation data&nbsp;</h5>Location of the transaction - IP address, GPS coordinates, and other data that can be used to determine the user's location.&nbsp;<h5 class="heading-node" id="0s8b81av5">Behavioral data&nbsp;&nbsp;</h5>Browsing history, search history, and other online activities that may be relevant to the transaction.&nbsp;<h5 class="heading-node" id="vbouas7eo">External data</h5>Information from external sources, such as credit bureaus, public records, and other third-party sources that can provide additional insights into the user's risk profile.&nbsp; Now that you have all the requisite data for building an FRM system, what next?&nbsp;<h4 class="heading-node" id="zt4bvsebg">Customer profiling&nbsp;</h4>Customer profiling is a process in which a business or organization collects and analyzes information about their customers and analyzes their behavior, preferences, and potential risks.Comprehensive customer profiling enables business &amp; risk teams to design the most appropriate models &amp; rules to mitigate fraudulent transactions.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3 class="heading-node" id="k0o72ows2">Introducing the Right Balance between Frictionless Flows and Challenges&nbsp;</h3><img src="https://m2p-website-file.s3.ap-south-1.amazonaws.com/m2p-website-file/marketing-cms/m2p-blog/2023/06/Design-request-for-FRM-blog_3_V3_2000X1000.webp" alt="M2P Fintech" title="" width="100%" height="383">A natural question arises when developing an FRM system,Why not increase the number of authentication steps to increase security and prevent cybercrime?Yes, the authentication journey can be made more complex but will definitely impact the user experience.What will the user feel if they are subjected to strenuous procedures just to make a normal digital transaction?On the other hand, if the number of authentication steps are fewer/none, the probability of a hacker breaking into the system tends to go high. That is why, while designing a risk engine, it is important to strike a balance between frictionless user experience and introducing a challenge. Having a configurable, customizable challenge experience is critical to identifying different fraud strategies.&nbsp;&nbsp;<h3 class="heading-node" id="rbhucvi5z">Interfacing FRM with External Systems</h3>To enhance the security capabilities with the ever-evolving frauds, you need to interface the FRM engine with external systems such as whitelists, hotlists, spam lists, disposable lists, etc. By regularly pulling data from these systems, you can keep the FRM updated in real time.Let’s take a scenario.A user lost his credit card. He immediately alerts the card issuer to block the card. The issuer hotlists the lost credit card, meaning the card is permanently blocked. Now, when a hacker tries to make a transaction using the lost card credentials, an FRM system can classify it as fraudulent if it is interfaced with hotlists.&nbsp;Integrating hotlist information into the Fraud Risk Management (FRM) system can significantly enhance an organization's ability to identify and manage potential risks. These risks may include money laundering, fraud, terrorist financing, etc. By leveraging this integration, organizations can proactively mitigate these risks and ensure compliance with relevant regulations.&nbsp;<h3 class="heading-node" id="dwd2niduz">Embracing Advanced Risk Checks</h3>Behavioral biometrics distinguishes genuine users from criminals by analyzing users’ physical and cognitive digital behavior. By assessing user behaviors such as mouse movements, typing cadence, swipe patterns, device orientation, etc., and comparing it with the historical user profile, the behavior can be classified as either good or bad.For example, genuine users practice different paces and navigation patterns, whereas cybercriminals rely on copy, paste, and automated programs. Genuine users use the autofill feature to fill in personal details, whereas criminals enter the data manually.&nbsp;<h3 class="heading-node" id="t9lliq7kr">Adopting Rules and Models</h3>When building an FRM system, many organizations solely rely on Machine Learning (ML) models for fraud detection. ML models help the FRM system scale, adapt, and visualize emerging threats and frauds.Does that mean you should stop following a rule-based approach?After all, why should anyone still follow the rules when there are efficient ML models that can learn by themselves?Though the ML-based approach facilitates real-time processing and can automatically detect anomalies and unique frauds, it takes time to set up and train the models. Moreover, an ML-based approach can get tricky and complicated, whereas rules are good for certain edge cases where a rule must be deployed quickly to arrest a threat.That is why it is important to design a risk engine that combines rules and models.After building a risk engine based on the above steps, it is important to test the engine periodically in real-time and get feedback on its performance. That is the job of a fraud/risk analyst. Then, they improve the system by fine-tuning the rules and models.&nbsp;<h2 class="heading-node" id="ju5uswrou">M2P Fraud and Risk Monitoring System</h2>M2P’s Fraud Risk Monitoring system leverages all the best practices in designing a risk engine. It evaluates the risk associated with various use cases (transaction, onboarding, login, and other non-payment scenarios) across all channels, including cards (authentication &amp; authorization), BNPL, core banking, payment gateway, UPI, etc.&nbsp;Our FRM system combines many sources of data and performs customer profiling by interfacing with external system. We deploy advanced risk checks such as behavioral biometrics to classify genuine users and follow a holistic approach that combines rules and models.&nbsp;<h3 class="heading-node" id="0yp3vmls5">Why M2P FRM?&nbsp;</h3><h4 class="heading-node" id="nlv820xtf">Effective Rule and Data Management&nbsp;</h4>Our FRM lets the user upload historical data, review rule performance, and deploy it after fine tuning the rules. Depending on the implementation of risk rules, the users can run the system in a listening mode (without uploading any historical data). In this case, the source system receives the risk score but does not make business decisions. Users can turn off the listening mode once the risk rules have been finalized.&nbsp;If users do not have any pre-defined rule set, our system provides a standard rule set covering all mandatory and a few optional/ conditional parameters.&nbsp;<h4 class="heading-node" id="eyi1c6dvd">Customizable Case Management Modules&nbsp;</h4>The case management section allows the issuer to flag a certain type of transaction as a case (based on a case definition) and conduct further analysis to determine if the transaction was genuine/fraudulent. The case management flow can be customized as per business &amp; risk preference.&nbsp;Our Case Management module can help you:&nbsp;<ul class="list-node" id="tmaa6nywo"><li>Set case definition (automatic rule) to flag certain transactions as cases&nbsp;</li><li>Prioritize cases as high/medium/low&nbsp;</li><li>Assign cases to be investigated by analyst&nbsp;</li><li>Automate case investigation via IVR/SMS/WhatsApp&nbsp;</li><li>Assign and reassign cases based on category, ageing, priority, etc.&nbsp;</li></ul><h4 class="heading-node" id="kt5dbo5zy">Comprehensive Reports and Dashboard section&nbsp;</h4>From fetching detailed transaction report, rule performance report to case management report till managing overall FRM system performance, filtering the dashboard by score, transaction outcome, genuine vs. fraudulent transactions, etc., our FRM gives a comprehensive reports and dashboard section to the users.&nbsp;<h4 class="heading-node" id="dxbq3wuqi">Seamless Feedback &nbsp;</h4>Our FRM eases the life of the fraud analysts. Whenever the analysts come with feedback, it is easy for them to incorporate into our risk engine.&nbsp;At M2P, we have had the privilege of collaborating with a diverse range of clients, and built lasting relationships with banks, NBFCs, and neobanks. Our team consists of seasoned professionals who possess a deep understanding of market trends and industry standards. With this knowledge, we craft innovative solutions that effectively combat cyber fraud and provide our clients with the protection they need.Do you want to protect your customers from cyber frauds?&nbsp;Reach out to us at <a class="link" href="mailto:business@m2pfintech.com">business@m2pfintech.com</a>!&nbsp;This blog was co-written by <a class="link" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/madhusudhanramakrishnan/">Madhusudhan Ramakrishnan</a>, Associate Vice President – Product Management, M2P.&nbsp;<a class="link" href="https://m2pfintech.com/newsletter/">Subscribe</a> to our newsletter and get the latest fintech news, views, and insights, directly to your inbox.&nbsp;Follow us on <a class="link" href="https://www.linkedin.com/company/m2pfintech/mycompany/">LinkedIn</a> and <a class="link" href="https://twitter.com/m2pfintech">Twitter</a> for insightful fintech tales curated for curious minds like you.&nbsp;

Tag: "Anti Money Laundering Aml (10)"

Product

About

Compliance

Resources