Why Banks Are Always One Step Behind Emerging Fraud 

The Velocity Gap: Why Banks Are Always One Step Behind Emerging Fraud

TL;TR 

Modern banks operate with world-class security teams and massive budgets, yet they remain tethered to legacy infrastructure that moves in slow “batches.” Meanwhile, fraudsters operate in real-time using agile, AI-driven workflows. To break this cycle, institutions must shift from internal transaction monitoring to external behavioral preemption; the core specialty of Saptang Labs. 

The Invisible Architecture of Modern Banking

Every major bank in 2025 operates on a simple, foundational premise: they serve as the secure vault for global commerce. To maintain this trust, they invest billions into the most advanced encryption and compliance frameworks available. Their Security Operations Centers (SOCs) are staffed by elite analysts, and their data centers are fortified like digital bunkers, designed to withstand the most sophisticated direct assaults. 

However, a structural flaw exists within this very foundation. While banks are engineered for stability and regulatory “batch” processing, the modern fraudster has adopted the mindset of a hyper-agile tech startup. Criminals have moved beyond simple “hacking.” They now leverage Generative AI to automate social engineering at an unprecedented scale and spin up disposable attack infrastructure in a matter of seconds. Consequently, a bank’s legacy mainframes and 18-month procurement cycles simply cannot keep pace with an adversary that can pivot their entire strategy in 18 minutes. 

To stop being “one step behind,” the industry must abandon the reactive model of chasing alerts after the fact. Banks need to move their defensive line outside their own perimeter, identifying the quiet build-up of fraud infrastructure long before a single dollar is moved. 

The $25 Million “Face-to-Face” Illusion

To understand why this agility gap is so dangerous, consider the mechanics of a recent high-stakes heist. A financial controller received an urgent video call from their CFO and several other senior board members. The visuals were perfect, the voices were familiar, and the instructions were clear and logical. 

In reality, every executive on that call was a high-fidelity AI deepfake. 

The bank’s security perimeter remained technically intact throughout the event. The tragedy was that the very premise of “identity” had been subverted. Because the bank’s systems were looking for malicious code rather than malicious intent, the transfer was authorized as a legitimate business action. This is the new reality of 2025: banks are defending the vault door, while attackers have already digitized the fingerprints of the person holding the key. 

The Anchor of Legacy: Why Mainframes Struggle

Banks operate with the best intentions and the most rigorous “Know Your Customer” (KYC) protocols in history. They utilize massive mainframes to process millions of transactions daily, ensuring the global economy stays upright. 

Yet, these systems are often powered by COBOL code written decades ago. This creates a “Latency Trap” that is fatal in the modern era. When an AI-driven script executes a thousand micro-transactions in seconds, a system that settles logs in batches is effectively blind. By the time the “Batch” finishes running, the money has already been laundered through non-traceable mixers and disappeared into the digital ether. 

The Technical Debt Bottleneck: 

  • The Integration Wall: Legacy systems lack the modern APIs required for the real-time data streaming necessary to stop modern fraud. 
  • Data Incompatibility: Fraud data often lives in one silo while cyber-threat data lives in another. Attackers exploit this gap, knowing the left hand of the bank cannot see what the right hand is doing. 

Attackers as Startups: The Rise of FaaS

Fraudsters are not burdened by legacy systems or regulatory oversight. Instead, they utilize “Fraud-as-a-Service” (FaaS) to rent sophisticated phishing kits and deepfake tools for a small monthly subscription. They use cloud-native tools to spin up command centers and employ Agentic AI to hold convincing, multi-turn conversations with victims. 

In contrast, most banks still rely on manual, “box-ticking” compliance as their primary shield. This creates a massive asymmetry where attackers scale at the speed of software, while defenders scale at the speed of human committees and quarterly reviews. 

Shifting the Horizon: From Triage to Preemption

The current model is fundamentally broken because it is reactive. It requires the fraud to occur before an investigation can begin. To change the outcome, we must adopt a strategy of Behavioral Preemption. This involves: 

  • Monitoring the “Quiet Build”: Tracking newly registered domains and rogue mobile applications the moment they appear, rather than waiting for them to target customers. 
  • Behavioral Biometrics: Analyzing how a user interacts with a device—the rhythm of their typing and the angle of their phone—rather than just what password they entered. 
  • Unified Intelligence: Merging the CISO’s cyber-signals with the Fraud team’s transaction data into a single, real-time narrative of intent. 

Frequently Asked Questions

  1. Whycan’tbanks just use AI to stop AI fraud? Banks do use powerful AI, but they face a significant “False Positive” hurdle. If the AI is too aggressive, it blocks legitimate customers and creates friction. This is why AI must be fed better external “pre-attack” data to distinguish between a real customer and a sophisticated mimic. 
  2. What makes “Authorized Push Payment” (APP) Fraud so difficult to stop?In these cases, the bank’s technical security worksperfectly and the transaction is legally authorized. However, the human was tricked into sending the money. This shifts the requirement of security from “Authorization” to “Intent.” 
  3. Is “Instant Payment” making fraud worse?While instant payments provide necessary convenience, they remove the “cooling-off” period that once allowed for wire recalls. This means detection must move from “Post-Transaction” to “Pre-Transaction” to be effective.
  4. How do synthetic identities bypass KYC?Attackers blend real stolen data with fake names to create “Frankenstein” identities. These accounts look like “good” customers for months before they suddenly “bust out” with massive loans. Banks need graph-based intelligence to see the hidden links between theseseemingly unrelated accounts. 

Conclusion:

The “One Step Behind” phenomenon is a choice, not a destiny. Banks have the data and the resources to win, but they currently lack the external visibility to see the adversary building their infrastructure in the shadows. 

Saptang Labs provides the “missing link” by moving the defensive line to the External Perimeter. Our AI engines identify brand abuse and infrastructure warming in real-time. We don’t just tell you that you’ve been defrauded; we identify the tools being built to defraud you and trigger automated takedowns before the attack ever goes live. 

Is your bank ready for the 2025 threat landscape? It is time to stop reacting and start preempting. Visit saptanglabs.com to secure your digital footprint today. 

You may also find this insight helpful: Why Attackers Scale Infrastructure While Teams Chase Alerts 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *