Card fraud rates may be historically low. But retail fraud has shifted beyond the checkout into BNPL, returns, refunds, delivery abuse, loyalty theft and promotion exploitation. This report explores:

• Why card fraud rates no longer tell the full story
• How BNPL became retail’s highest-risk payment channel, and why payment data alone isn’t enough
• How post-purchase fraud erodes margins and promo abuse hides inside legitimate-looking orders
• What synthetic identities, loyalty abuse and behavioural signals reveal about modern retail fraud

If you operate high-volume ecommerce or retail journeys, this is an essential guide that will help you understand and adapt to major challenges.

The post 2026 Annual Overview of Fraud in France appeared first on Oneytrust.

Fake companies, impersonated representatives, and synthetic business identities are on the rise. Traditional KYB checks don’t verify whether everything adds up. This eBook explores:

• Why traditional KYB has critical blind spots
• How fraudsters exploit the gap between company and representative identity
• Why digital signals now play a critical role in B2B fraud prevention
• How D-Risk ID Corporate detects fraud before onboarding turns into loss

If you manage high-volume B2B onboarding journeys, this is an essential guide.

The post 2026 guide to B2B fraud and corporate identity verification appeared first on Oneytrust.

Evolving threats. Smarter defenses. The challenges facing French eCommerce businesses and how they are adapting to survive.

• The riskiest delivery methods
• Most challenging payment types
• Importance of location data
• BNPL, return and refund fraud

If you are operating in France, this is an
essential guide.

The post 2025 annual overview of fraud in France appeared first on Oneytrust.

Fraud in financial services is becoming more complex and far harder to reverse once funds leave the system. This report explores:

• Why seemingly low fraud rates still mask major exposure for financial services firms
• How instant payments have become a huge target – requiring new approaches to fraud prevention
• Why manipulation scams bypass traditional authentication controls
• How synthetic identities fuel onboarding abuse

If you operate in payments, banking, BNPL or consumer finance, this is an essential guide to areas you should focus anti-fraud efforts on next.

The post Guide to Finance Industry Fraud Trends in France appeared first on Oneytrust.

In fact, 380 million people use BNPL services globally. This is predicted to increase to 670 million by 2028. This rapid growth brings fresh challenges: more users, higher transaction volumes, and lighter onboarding controls create fertile ground for fraudsters to test and exploit gaps in risk controls. 

For payments professionals, that means balancing the demand for fast, frictionless customer experiences with the need to protect revenue, manage chargebacks, and reduce operational strain.

Let’s break down what BNPL fraud looks like in practice, explore why it’s a growing concern for ecommerce teams, and share practical strategies your business can adopt to prevent fraud without undermining conversion.

What Is BNPL Fraud and Why It’s a Growing Concern

BNPL fraud refers to activity that exploits Buy Now, Pay Later payment systems to deceive merchants or providers and obtain goods, services, or credit without intending to pay back. Fraudsters take advantage of BNPL’s lightweight onboarding and delayed settlement structure, making it easier to abuse the system compared with traditional payment methods.⁴⁾ Common examples include:

• Identity misuse and synthetic identities — criminals use stolen personal information or fabricated identities to open BNPL accounts or complete purchases.
• Friendly or first-party fraud — an initially legitimate user who abuses the system by taking out BNPL credit with no intention of repaying or disputes legitimate transactions to force a refund.
• Account takeover (ATO) — fraudsters compromise a legitimate user’s account to make purchases without the owner’s knowledge.

Similarly to traditional card fraud, BNPL fraud often begins in the onboarding process and unfolds over weeks or months, because the payment is deferred and the provider only learns of non-repayment later. This difference makes detection and response more complicated than instant card-based transactions.

Why BNPL Fraud Is Growing

Several structural features of BNPL heighten the fraud risk:

• Frictionless onboarding lowers barriers: BNPL services prioritise speed and ease at checkout, often with limited identity checks, which fraudsters can exploit to slip through risk controls.

• Rapid volume growth expands attack surface: As BNPL adoption continues to surge worldwide, fraudsters increasingly target these platforms with both traditional tactics and new schemes like bot-based application attacks.-making according to Visa.  

The combination of convenience for legitimate customers and exploitable vulnerabilities for bad actors is why BNPL fraud continues to rise, making robust prevention strategies essential for payments and fraud teams. 

Top BNPL Fraud Problems and Why Traditional Controls Struggle

BNPL fraud continues to grow as Buy Now, Pay Later becomes a more common payment method in ecommerce. The same features that make BNPL attractive to shoppers — fast onboarding and deferred payments — also introduce gaps that fraudsters can exploit. Traditional fraud controls, designed for older payment models, often aren’t built to address these unique dynamics. 

Identity Abuse and Synthetic Identities

One of the most common BNPL fraud problems is identity exploitation. Fraudsters use stolen personal information or create synthetic identities by combining real data with fake details. 

Because many BNPL systems aim for minimal friction at signup, these fraudulent profiles can slip through basic checks, be used to make purchases, and then be abandoned before repayment is due.

Strategic Misuse by Customers

Not all BNPL fraud originates outside the customer base. Friendly fraud occurs when a shopper disputes a legitimate BNPL transaction, claiming it was unauthorized in order to trigger a refund. 

Because the customer is legitimate and uses legitimate payment methods, resolving these cases can be trickier than straightforward fraud cases, and can increase operational workload and losses for merchants.

Account Takeover and Rapid-Fire Attacks

Another frequent risk is account takeover (ATO), where fraudsters gain access to legitimate user accounts through stolen credentials, phishing, or credential stuffing. Relatedly, automated attacks can submit multiple BNPL applications in quick succession from the same device or network in an attempt to overwhelm simple rule-based systems. 

Traditional fraud tools, optimised for instant credit card authorisation, often miss these patterns because the risk doesn’t fully manifest at the moment of checkout.

Why Traditional Controls Fail to Tackle BNPL Fraud

Legacy fraud systems primarily rely on static rules and historical payment signals that work reasonably well for immediate card transactions. They struggle when signals are subtle, delayed, or behavioural in nature, common characteristics of BNPL fraud. 

They also often force a trade-off between false positives (blocking legitimate customers) and false negatives (missing real fraud), which can hurt conversion rates and customer experience.

This combination of new fraud patterns and outdated controls is why many teams are moving toward modern, adaptive BNPL fraud prevention tools that can assess risk in real time, incorporate identity intelligence, and monitor behaviour throughout the payment lifecycle.

How to Improve BNPL Fraud Prevention

Effective BNPL fraud prevention requires more than adapting traditional card-based controls. Because Buy Now, Pay Later models combine fast onboarding with deferred repayment, risk teams need layered, real-time approaches that assess identity, behaviour, and transaction context together.

Strengthen Identity Verification at Onboarding

Lightweight signup processes are attractive to customers and fraudsters alike. That’s why identity verification should go beyond basic email and address checks. This includes evaluating device intelligence, email and phone reputation, behavioural signals and consistency across data points. 

The goal is not to introduce heavy friction for every customer, but to build a clearer picture of whether a user is genuinely who they claim to be.

Use Real-Time Risk Scoring at Key Decision Points

BNPL fraud often begins at account creation or first purchase. Real-time fraud detection at onboarding and checkout allows teams to assess risk instantly, rather than waiting for repayment failures or disputes to reveal problems later. 

Adaptive risk scoring, based on identity signals, transaction context, and behavioural patterns, helps teams act before losses occur.

Monitor Velocity and Anomalous Behaviour

Fraudsters frequently test systems by submitting multiple applications, using the same device across different identities, or making rapid, high-value purchases. 

Effective BNPL fraud prevention includes monitoring for velocity spikes, unusual account patterns, and inconsistencies across sessions. These behavioural indicators often reveal organised activity that static rule sets miss.

Extend Controls Beyond the First Transaction

Because BNPL revenue is deferred, fraud risk doesn’t end at checkout. Ongoing monitoring — including changes in device, payment details, delivery address, or repayment behaviour — helps identify account takeover, friendly fraud, or emerging repayment risk before it escalates. Continuous fraud detection reduces the likelihood that issues only surface weeks later.

Balance Risk Reduction with Customer Experience

Perhaps the most important principle is balance. Overly aggressive controls can create high false positives, blocking legitimate buyers and damaging conversion rates. 

Intelligent BNPL fraud prevention uses risk-based step-ups, applying stronger checks only when signals justify them, to protect revenue without undermining the seamless experience customers expect.

Why This Matters for Payments and Fraud Teams

Stronger BNPL fraud prevention delivers more than lower fraud rates;

It directly reduces losses, chargebacks and write-offs, protecting margins in a payment model where repayment risk is already deferred.

Secondly, better fraud detection lowers manual review volumes, reducing operational strain and allowing teams to focus on higher-value investigations rather than processing borderline cases.

It’s also worth remembering that by minimising unnecessary declines, you improve approval rates and customer experience, supporting conversion and repeat purchase behaviour.

Finally, more sophisticated risk controls strengthen your compliance and partner relationships, demonstrating responsible credit management in a regulatory environment that continues to evolve.

In short, effective BNPL fraud prevention is not just a defensive measure — it’s a strategic enabler of sustainable growth. By reducing losses while preserving customer experience, payments teams can support long-term revenue expansion without increasing exposure to fraud risk.

Start Building your BNPL Fraud Protection Strategy

The answer isn’t heavier, more disruptive checks. It’s balanced, intelligent BNPL fraud prevention that combines strong identity signals, real-time fraud detection and ongoing monitoring without undermining the customer experience.

If done well, these measures shouldn’t affect your growth, they should actually complement it. As BNPL adoption continues to expand, teams that modernise their approach to fraud risk will be best positioned to reduce losses, maintain approval rates and support sustainable revenue growth.

For deeper insight into related identity and payment fraud challenges, explore our other resources on digital identity verification and fraud prevention strategies.

If I (Sébastien Carletti) were to elaborate on the BNPL fraud subject, here would be my take:

BNPL Fraud Prevention: Key Risks and How Businesses Can Reduce Exposure

What is BNPL Fraud?

Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) solutions have rapidly transformed the ecommerce landscape, allowing customers to split payments into instalments while merchants benefit from higher conversion rates and larger basket sizes.

However, the rapid growth of BNPL has also attracted new forms of fraud and misuse. The deferred nature of the payment creates a structural gap between the purchase and the moment the financial risk materialises.

Traditionally, fraud in digital payments refers to situations where an attacker impersonates or takes control of a legitimate user in order to obtain goods or services without paying. In BNPL environments, this remains a major threat.

But BNPL also introduces a second category of risk: situations where the customer is genuine and correctly identified, yet repayment may never occur.

Understanding BNPL risk therefore requires distinguishing between professional fraud and strategic misuse by legitimate customers.

Why BNPL Fraud is Increasing

Several factors contribute to the growing exposure of BNPL providers.

Frictionless onboarding

BNPL services are designed to reduce friction at checkout. While this improves customer experience, it also lowers the barrier for attackers attempting to create accounts or apply for credit using stolen or synthetic identities.

Deferred payment models

Unlike traditional card payments, the financial risk in BNPL appears later in the transaction lifecycle. This delay gives both fraudsters and opportunistic users more time before repayment obligations become visible.

Rapid market adoption

As BNPL becomes a mainstream payment option, the attack surface naturally increases. More users, more merchants, and more transactions mean a broader environment where both organised fraud and behavioural misuse can occur.

Key BNPL Risk Categories

The post BNPL Fraud Prevention: Key Risks and Solutions  appeared first on Oneytrust.

So, unsurprisingly, fraud in digital ecosystems has evolved to overcome existing checks and safeguards.

Instead of breaking systems, criminals now move through them – using valid data, real registration processes and increasingly sophisticated methods to appear legitimate.

Common tactics include:

• • Creating shell or short-lived companies designed to pass verification (including KYB)
• • Impersonating legal representatives or directors of legitimate businesses
• • Submitting real or near-authentic documentation
• • Combining accurate data with false or inconsistent identity elements
• • Exploiting fast onboarding processes to avoid deeper scrutiny

Such profiles are not obviously fraudulent. Every element is designed to blend in. And that is exactly why they succeed.

This is where subtle inconsistencies – otherwise known as ‘weak signals’ – can reveal what traditional checks overlook.

The structural limitations of KYB
If you’re in B2B and regularly onboarding new partners/merchants, you’re already aware of Know Your Business (KYB). KYB’s mandatory compliance processes were designed to answer one question: does this company exist?

But existence is not the same as legitimacy. It doesn’t mean a company is safe to work with. This is especially evident in cases of synthetic identity, where real and fake data are combined to create profiles that pass standard verification unnoticed. You can read more on synthetic identities here.

KYB verifies registration data, legal documents and company status. But it does not verify:

• Whether the person acting on behalf of the company is legitimate
• Whether the identity and the business are actually connected
• Whether the digital behaviour behind the application is consistent

In other words, KYB validates the company on paper – but not the reality behind it.

This creates a blind spot that fraudsters thrive in.

Where modern fraud operates
In most B2B fraud scenarios, the issue isn’t the company alone. It’s the gap between three key elements:

• The company
• The representative(s)
• The digital footprint

Each may appear valid in isolation. But together, they don’t always align. For example:

• A legitimate company… paired with an impersonated director
• A real registration… linked to a disposable email and unusual device data
• A consistent identity… but behaviour that doesn’t match a real business user

Individually, these signals may not trigger concern. But combined, they reveal serious risk.

This lack of coherence is what traditional approaches fail to detect.

The grave cost of getting it wrong
We don’t need to hammer this home too much, but when these inconsistencies go unnoticed, the consequences are often significant:

• Fraudulent companies gain access to platforms, services, marketplaces, etc.
• Credit may be issued to entities that will never repay
• Equipment or goods may be rented and never returned
• Merchant accounts can be used for illicit activity
• Your business faces increased exposure to AML and compliance risks

Beyond financial loss, there is also reputational damage and operational disruption to worry about. These are often only discovered after the fraud has occurred.

A shift in how corporate identity is verified
To address evolving fraud techniques, businesses need to move beyond the document-based verification and other limitations inherent to KYB.

The question is no longer: “is this company valid?”, but rather: “does everything about this business – and the person behind it – make sense together?”

A longer question, sure, but an incredibly important one.

This requires a new approach to corporate identity verification, built on three principles:

1/ Verifying the company
Not just its existence, its sector of activity, whether it is facing insolvency proceedings, or its legitimacy.

2/ Verifying the representative
Confirming the identity of the individual(s) acting on behalf of the business

3/ Analysing digital behaviour
Understanding the signals behind the interaction, including device, IP, email and behavioural patterns

The real value comes from connecting these elements – and flagging where they don’t align.

Coherence is key
Today, digital identities aren’t just a set of static data – but a combination of attributes, behaviours and interactions that form a picture over time.

Modern fraud detection is no longer about checking isolated data points. It’s about assessing coherence. In other words… does the company match the person? Does the person match the behaviour? Does the overall profile resemble a legitimate business interaction?

This shift from validation to consistency allows businesses to detect fraud that would otherwise go unnoticed.

Closing the gaps in B2B onboarding
As onboarding becomes faster and more automated, the risks increase.

Manual checks can’t scale, document verification alone isn’t enough and fraudsters adapt faster than traditional controls.

To stay ahead, businesses need to rethink how they verify professional identities – bringing together company data, identity verification and digital signals into a single, coherent view.

This is where a new approach to corporate identity verification becomes essential.

A new approach to corporate identity verification
D-Risk ID Corporate is designed to address all the challenges we’ve discussed in this blog. In real-time, it verifies the company, the person behind it and the countless digital signals that underpin each application.

By closing the gaps left by traditional KYB, D-Risk ID Corporate enables businesses to:

• Detect fraud earlier in the onboarding process
• Reduce exposure to financial and compliance risk
• Approve legitimate businesses faster
• Build trust in high-volume business environments

Discover how D-Risk ID Corporate works here.

Conclusion
Businesses can’t beat B2B fraud by focusing on fake data alone.

The future of fraud prevention lies in understanding not just what a business claims to be – but whether everything around it makes sense.

So, while KYB verification focuses only on the company, D-Risk ID Corporate uncovers inconsistent identities – even those that appear legitimate.

The post Why KYB is no longer enough to stop B2B fraud appeared first on Oneytrust.

These figures illustrate a major shift: identity fraud is becoming an industrialized phenomenon, fueled by AI and organized on a large scale.

In this context, the central question for financial institutions and digital platforms is no longer simply how to strengthen controls, but how to detect fraudulent behavior in an environment where identity artifacts are becoming increasingly credible.

The pitfall of visible checks

Historically, the fight against fraud has been structured around visible checkpoints:

• ID checks
• facial recognition
• KYC procedures during onboarding

These mechanisms remain essential. But they share a fundamental characteristic: they are visible to those undergoing them. In other words, fraudsters can analyse them, test them and gradually learn to circumvent them. A fraudster regularly confronted with a face-matching system will quickly seek to understand how it works. They can then experiment with different methods: deepfakes, face swapping, video injection or biometric replication.

This phenomenon is nothing new. In many areas of security, visible mechanisms are always eventually analysed and circumvented. It is precisely for this reason that the fight against fraud cannot rely solely on what might be called the ‘right hand’: visible monitoring.

The ‘left hand’: invisible detection

An effective anti-fraud strategy actually relies on two complementary aspects:

• The ‘right hand’: verification. These are the visible checks that enable information or an identity to be confirmed.
• The ‘left hand’: detection. This involves analysing signals that are invisible or difficult for fraudsters to interpret.

The difference is crucial. Controls can be observed and circumvented. Detection relies on data patterns and correlations that are difficult to anticipate. In this model, controls play an important but secondary role: they serve to reinforce or confirm a signal detected elsewhere. This approach helps to avoid a constant technological arms race between fraudsters and control systems.

Deepfakes: the new frontier in biometric fraud

The emergence of deepfakes perfectly illustrates this trend. Modern biometric systems now incorporate liveness detection mechanisms, requiring the user to perform an action in real time. These checks make fraud more complex, but they also drive attackers towards more advanced techniques. According to Entrust, deepfakes now account for around 40% of fraud attempts on video biometric systems.

Fraudsters exploit, in particular:

• AI-generated deepfakes
• injection attacks using virtual cameras
• manipulated video streams inserted into capture systems

These techniques enable falsified biometric data to be fed directly into digital identity systems. Fraud is therefore no longer simply a matter of forging a document. It involves manipulating the data streams themselves.

The rise of synthetic identities

At the same time, AI is accelerating the creation of synthetic identities. Rather than stealing an existing identity, fraudsters create a new identity by combining:

• real personal data
• fabricated information
• manipulated or generated documents

AI tools enable these identities to be produced quickly, cheaply and on a large scale. This type of fraud is particularly dangerous because these identities can remain active within an organisation’s systems for a long time before being exploited. Losses associated with synthetic identity fraud are expected to reach tens of billions of dollars in the coming years.

AI for detection

In light of these developments, the issue is not simply a matter of using AI to strengthen visible controls. A more effective strategy involves deploying AI at the heart of detection mechanisms. Fraud does not usually manifest itself as a single anomaly. Rather, it emerges through an accumulation of weak signals:

• inconsistencies in data
• atypical behaviour
• correlations between accounts or identities
• similar activity patterns

Analysing these signals requires processing large amounts of data and detecting patterns invisible to the human eye. It is precisely in this area that artificial intelligence can deliver the greatest value. This approach fits within the DIKW (Data – Information – Knowledge – Wisdom) conceptual framework, where data analysis gradually transforms raw data into actionable knowledge.

A multi-layered anti-fraud architecture

To be effective, a modern anti-fraud strategy must combine several layers of protection:

• document analysis
• facial biometrics
• device and behavioural intelligence
• geolocation and velocity analysis
• identity correlation
• repeat fraud detection

The aim is not to increase the number of visible checks, but to combine multiple signals that make fraud detectable without being easily observable. This approach helps maintain a vital balance: protecting organisations against fraud whilst minimising friction for legitimate users.

Building trust in digital identity

In an increasingly digital world, identity verification remains a critical stage in the user journey. Onboarding often presents the first opportunity to build trust in an identity. Modern digital identity verification solutions now combine multiple sources of information and detection mechanisms to assess the overall risk associated with an identity.

Platforms such as Oneytrust’s D-Risk Commerce and D-Risk ID follow this approach by orchestrating various risk signals to enhance fraud detection without compromising the user experience. The aim is not to replace controls, but to integrate them into a broader detection strategy that is less predictable for fraudsters.

Conclusion

The rise of AI-generated deepfakes marks a new stage in the evolution of identity fraud. Fraud is no longer just a matter of forged documents or stolen data. It is becoming a systemic phenomenon combining synthetic identities, AI-generated content and automated attack infrastructures. In this context, organisations must move beyond an approach focused solely on visible controls.

True effectiveness lies in the ability to detect fraudulent patterns through data analysis and the identification of weak signals.

In other words, fighting fraud is not waged solely with the right hand — that of control. It is waged above all with the left hand — that of detection.

The post The Rise of AI-Generated Deepfakes in Identity Theft appeared first on Oneytrust.

Fraud is evolving rapidly thanks to generative AI

Fraudsters now have access to technologies that were once the preserve of experts. It takes just a few clicks to generate:

• doctored images of products “supposedly” broken,
• forged supporting documents,
• and well-crafted synthetic identities

As TF1 explains, private sellers are now facing disputes based on AI-manipulated photos, with automated systems sometimes turning against the honest victim themselves.

One user interviewed recounted losing €180 due to an AI-generated image showing a supposedly broken vinyl record — an item that, by its very nature, does not break in that way. The platform’s automated system, however, ruled in favour of the fraudster, illustrating the vulnerability of traditional checks.

This phenomenon is part of a global trend: fraud involving doctored images is skyrocketing, with a 15% increase in falsified images in claims since the start of 2025.

Three major trends observed by Oneytrust

At Oneytrust, our experts have identified three major shifts:

1. More sophisticated fraud

Generative AI can produce highly realistic images, some of which are impossible to distinguish with the naked eye. Synthetic identities or invoices recreated pixel by pixel can fool traditional verification systems.

2. The industrialisation of attempts

What was once manual work is now automated. Fraudsters are now launching vast, coordinated campaigns, drastically increasing the volume of attempts detected on e-commerce sites.
This industrialisation is confirmed by the TF1 report, which warns of waves of scams potentially affecting millions of people.

3. New weak signals

Traditional methods are no longer sufficient. When evidence is generated by AI, behaviour, metadata and contextual inconsistencies become the new areas of analysis.

 AI: an essential tool for countering these new attacks

With fraudsters now using AI, anti-fraud solutions must evolve. That is why Oneytrust has integrated advanced artificial intelligence models at the heart of its technologies.

In particular, our systems enable us to:

Detect behavioural and contextual inconsistencies

Frequency of returns, unusual histories, multiple addresses or devices: the patterns speak for themselves.
Our solution cross-references these signals to identify abuse well before it becomes visibly repetitive.

Adapt in real time

Fraud methods change every week. Our models continuously recalibrate to keep pace with these changes and block emerging attacks.

Identify organised networks

By analysing data structure and correlating identity details, devices and network history, Oneytrust exposes organised criminal groups operating under different identities or accounts.

Tailor detection to your returns processes

Oneytrust adapts precisely to each retailer’s returns policies and internal workflows, incorporating their rules, thresholds and operational specifics.

The real challenge: maintaining trust

In this context, the issue is no longer simply about blocking fraud.
It is about protecting the relationship of trust between retailers and their customers.

Excessive suspicion can damage the shopping experience. Being too permissive can encourage abuse and undermine business models. The balance is therefore delicate — and AI plays a crucial role in accurately distinguishing between:

• honest shoppers,
• opportunistic fraudsters,
• and organised criminal networks.

Oneytrust is committed to maintaining this balance by combining cutting-edge technology with human expertise.

Fraud and AI: a huge challenge… but far from insurmountable

Artificial intelligence has profoundly transformed the landscape of reimbursement fraud. Whilst it provides fraudsters with new tools, it further enhances companies’ ability to detect and stop them.

With ongoing investment, increasingly sophisticated models and greater collaboration across the entire ecosystem, this battle is not only possible, but winnable.

Trust is one of the cornerstones of online commerce. Together, let’s continue to protect it.

The post Refund fraud: when AI becomes a tool for fraudsters… appeared first on Oneytrust.

1. The new broad definition of an ‘AI system’

The text defines an AI system very broadly as a ‘machine-based system, operating with varying degrees of autonomy, capable of adapting after deployment and which, for explicit or implicit purposes, deduces from data how to generate results (predictions, content, recommendations, decisions) that influence physical or virtual environments’.

This broad technological scope is complex to implement operationally, but the market agrees that it encompasses sophisticated approaches such as machine learning (ML), hybrid expert rule + machine learning approaches, and advanced optimisation.

With the proliferation of AI use by fraudsters, trusted anti-fraud companies such as Oneytrust will need to further develop their range of AI solutions to power their scoring, behavioural alerting and anomaly analysis engines in order to keep up with the times and identify increasingly sophisticated fraud patterns.

2. Risks: where does fraud detection fit in?

The AI Act classifies certain uses as ‘high risk’ (critical biometrics, employment, education, access to essential services such as credit scoring, health insurance pricing, etc.). These systems are authorised but must be accompanied by a very sophisticated risk management system and an assessment of their compliance before being placed on the market.

One notable exception is that AI used to detect financial fraud is not automatically considered ‘high risk’. This reduces the direct regulatory burden, but does not remove the expectations of transparency, data quality and human oversight that regulated institutions contractually pass on to their subsidiaries and suppliers (such as Oneytrust).

3. What are the key dates to remember?

The main requirements of the AI Act will come into force in stages. Here are the key dates to remember:

• 2 February 2025: entry into force of the ‘unacceptable risk’ prohibitions + AI literacy requirement (awareness/training for staff involved in AI).
• 2 August 2025: obligations for general-purpose AI models (GPAI) begin to apply (generative AI).
• 2 February 2026: European deadline for certain implementing acts (post-market surveillance plans).
• 2 August 2026: obligations for high-risk AI systems.
• August 2027: general application of all provisions of the regulation.

4. Why prepare even if you are not ‘high risk’?

Fraudsters are becoming industrialised with AI. Deepfakes, fake documents, automated attack scripts, automated use of synthetic identities: fraud is scaling up. Those involved in the fight against fraud must adapt quickly to these new trends.

Although fraud prevention is not explicitly considered high risk, it is essential to ensure that solutions respect the fundamental rights and privacy of customers and end users, whether in accordance with the GDPR or the AI Act. In addition, the expectations of regulated partners (mainly in the banking sector) are increasingly high, as they are subject to sector-specific requirements that demand traceability, good documentation and heightened vigilance regarding the quality of the data used to satisfy their supervisors.

5. The Oneytrust response

Oneytrust provides identity verification and fraud detection solutions for e-merchants, fintechs and banks, relying on AI solutions coupled with our 25 years of human expertise in fraud prevention to detect synthetic identities, transactional anomalies and risk signals in real time. We are members of the BPCE Group, which drives us to high standards of compliance and model governance.¹

As with the GDPR, we did not wait to cultivate our expertise on the AI Act and have been raising awareness and training our staff on these new compliance issues for several years. Contact us if you would like to learn more about Oneytrust’s vision for AI compliance and risk management!

The post AI Act and Fraud Prevention : why the market must prepare appeared first on Oneytrust.

That something is weak signals.

What is a weak signal in digital identity?

A weak signal, as its name suggests, is not a red alert. It is a detail. A micro-anomaly. An almost invisible (or rather ignored) inconsistency taken in isolation, but which takes on its full meaning when correlated with other elements.

For example:

• a known device… but whose technical fingerprint has changed slightly;
• a connection from a usual city… at a completely atypical time;
• correct keystrokes… but with an unusual rhythm;
• a smooth user journey… but traveled at a speed too fast to be human.

None of these elements alone is sufficient to justify blocking an event. But together, they tell a different story from what the declarative data would suggest.

Why strong signals are no longer enough

Historically, security relied on binary elements: correct password, validated SMS code, recognized device.

The problem? These proofs can be stolen, intercepted, or simulated.

Malware, phishing, massive data leaks, and automation tools have turned credentials into mere raw material for fraudsters. Even strong authentication is no longer foolproof against real-time proxy attacks or remote takeover.

The result: a user can tick all the boxes for legitimacy while still being a fraudster. This is precisely where weak signals become decisive.

Weak signals reveal behavior, not a declared identity

A declared identity can be falsified. Behavior is much more difficult to fake.

Weak signals allow us to answer not the question “Is this information correct?” but “Does this behavior resemble that of a legitimate human being in this specific context?”

This leads us to a dynamic interpretation of digital identity, based on the consistency of habits, the continuity of interactions, and the logic of sequences of actions.

From isolated events to behavioral history

The true power of weak signals lies not in a snapshot, but in duration.

A strange connection may be insignificant. Two anomalies close together begin to raise questions. A series of micro-deviations paints a picture of fraud.

It is by connecting these dots that we move from one-off checks to continuous behavioral monitoring. Digital identity ceases to be a state and becomes an evolving probability.

The challenge: detecting without degrading the experience

Exploiting weak signals does not mean increasing friction.

The goal is to adapt the level of vigilance: request additional verification only when the risk increases, silently monitor suspicious behavior, and trigger enhanced controls on sensitive actions.

In other words: make security proportional to the actual risk.

When email addresses become a weak signal

Email addresses are often perceived as simple contact identifiers. However, they contain a wealth of information that is underestimated when analyzed from a semantic and behavioral perspective.

Let’s take two examples: marie.dupont@yahoo.fr and ma.rie_du.pont1567@gmail.com.

Both addresses are technically valid. Both can pass standard checks. But they don’t tell the same story.

Semantic analysis involves observing the structure, logic, and consistency of an email address in relation to the context declared by the user.

Discreet but telling clues may emerge: domain name, username composition, presence of promotional keywords, consistent or inconsistent series of numbers, unusual complexity, or recurrence of similar patterns observed in previous fraud cases.

Taken in isolation, none of these elements proves fraud. But they may indicate that an address was created quickly, en masse, or for purely transactional rather than relational purposes.

A real digital identity often leaves traces of continuity. Conversely, in many fraud scenarios, the email address is a disposable tool designed to pass a technical check, not to reflect a lasting identity.

Semantic analysis therefore allows us to answer a subtle question: does this address resemble a human point of contact or a functional artifact created for a specific scenario?

Once again, the value comes from correlation: unusually structured email, rapid account creation, device recently seen on other accounts, automated browsing. It is the aggregation of these weak signals that reveals a credible risk.

From raw data to contextual intelligence

Weak signals already exist in your systems: technical logs, browsing data, device metadata, action sequences.

The difference lies not in the quantity of data, but in the ability to correlate it in real time, contextualize it according to the journey, learn from past patterns, and detect subtle deviations.

Digital identity is no longer a file, it is a flow

For years, we treated identity as a file: static information to be verified once and for all.

Weak signals are forcing us to change our paradigm. Identity is becoming a continuous stream of behaviors, which are confirmed or degraded through interactions.

Conclusion

Major frauds rarely hide behind big anomalies. They are concealed in the details that we don’t look at.

Learning to read weak signals means accepting that the truth is no longer found in a single piece of evidence, but in the accumulation of micro-clues. In a world where identities can be fabricated, stolen, or rented, this subtle reading becomes one of the pillars of digital trust.

The post Weak signals: those little-noticed details that reveal the authenticity of a digital identity appeared first on Oneytrust.