Fraud prevention spend to hit $66bn as banks seek cross-sector intel

Financial institutions will spend $66.2bn on fraud prevention by 2031, as criminal networks force banks to share intelligence across industries.

By Disrupts Editorial Team Fri, 6 November 2026 AI level 2 of 5

AI level 2 of 5: drafted by our AI editorial assistant from the company's announcement; fact-checked, edited and signed off by Mark Walker, Editorial Director. What the levels mean

A brightly lit, modern control room features a multi-panel video wall displaying abstract blue shapes, a row of light wood desks with control panels, keyboards, mice, and chairs, and large windows revealing a city skyline.

Global spending on banking fraud prevention is set to more than double within five years, reaching $66.2 billion by 2031, up 83% from an estimated $36.2 billion this year, according to a new market study by Juniper Research. The driver is not simply volume growth in financial crime, but a structural shift in how fraud operates: criminal networks are deliberately exploiting the seams between banks, payment processors, digital platforms and telecoms operators, rendering institution-level defences increasingly inadequate.

The Juniper Research report frames the response as a cross-industry intelligence problem as much as a technology one. Fraud prevention vendors are expanding their data partnerships beyond the banking perimeter, incorporating mobile network signals from telecoms operators alongside payment flows, identity records and behavioural analytics. The implication is that the fraud-prevention market is quietly becoming a multi-sector data-exchange infrastructure, not a banking product vertical.

Mule networks and the visibility gap

The report zeroes in on money mule account networks as a particular blind spot. "Banks may understand the risks associated with their own customers, but often lack visibility of the beneficiary receiving the payment," said Shane O'Sullivan, the report's author. "Sharing accurate and up-to-date intelligence across institutions will therefore be essential to identifying mule networks earlier and preventing fraudulent funds from moving further through the financial system."

The mechanics of the problem illustrate why siloed approaches are failing. A fraudulent identity may be clean within one institution's records while simultaneously operating as a mule conduit in another's. Without a shared signal layer, each bank is effectively making payment decisions blind to the broader network. Juniper recommends combining network intelligence with behavioural, identity and payment data as the baseline for any credible detection regime, and says vendors offering cross-institutional visibility will be structurally better positioned as the market consolidates.

A real-world example cited in the report is the July 2026 partnership between Cifas, the UK fraud prevention organisation, and the Global Signal Exchange. The collaboration connects intelligence across banking, telecoms, retail and technology platforms, an architecture that mirrors the cross-sector nature of the criminal networks it is designed to counter.

Convergence capital and the vendor landscape

For cross-sector investors, the $66.2 billion figure signals a market that is moving from point solutions toward platform infrastructure. The shift towards shared intelligence creates network-effect dynamics: the more institutions contribute data, the more accurate the signal becomes for all participants. That economic structure tends to favour consolidation around a small number of scaled platform vendors, and it is already attracting capital from outside traditional fintech. Telecoms operators, identity-verification specialists and cybersecurity firms are all logical adjacencies, and in some cases active participants, in this emerging ecosystem.

The macro context matters here. Regulatory pressure on fraud liability is intensifying across major jurisdictions. The UK's authorised push payment (APP) fraud reimbursement rules, which took effect in 2024, shifted financial exposure back onto banks in a way that makes fraud prevention a balance-sheet issue rather than a compliance checkbox. Similar frameworks are under discussion in the EU and parts of the Asia-Pacific region. As liability regimes tighten, the business case for cross-institutional intelligence sharing improves dramatically, and so does the addressable market for vendors building the connective tissue between institutions.

The broader convergence angle is worth tracking: fraud prevention is becoming a data-infrastructure story. As the signal layer expands to include telecoms data, device intelligence, retail transaction patterns and identity graphs, the distinction between a fraud-prevention platform and a cross-sector data exchange begins to blur. That convergence opens competitive space for datatech and cybersecurity players alongside traditional fraud-management vendors, and it is likely to drive M&A activity as institutions seek to internalise capabilities rather than rely solely on third-party networks.