Loading...

How to Detect and Prevent Fraud Rings

by Guest Contributor 4 min read July 1, 2020

Every few months we hear in the news about a fraud ring that has been busted here in the U.S. or in another part of the world. In May, I read about a fraud ring based in Georgia and Louisiana that bought 13,000 stolen identities of children who were on the Louisiana Medicaid program and billed the government for services not rendered. This group defrauded the Medicaid program of more than $500,000.

This is just one of many stories that we hear about fraud rings, and given the rapidly changing economic environment, now is the time for businesses to think about how to protect against fraud rings. There are a number of challenges that organizations may have when it comes to sharing trends and collaborations, understanding the ways to tie fraud rings together, creating treatments for identifying fraud rings and ways to store and catalogue fraud ring experiences so they can be easily recognized.

The trouble with identifying fraud rings

It’s important to understand the challenges that organizations have because they see the fraud rings through their own internal lens. Here are a few of the top things businesses should work on:

  • Think like a fraudster. This will help businesses become more creative in their approach to fraud prevention.
  • Facilitate internal collaboration. Share with in-organization partners. Sometimes this can be difficult due to organizational structure.
  • Promote external collaboration. Intel-sharing groups are a great way for businesses to network within their industries and learn about the fraud that others are seeing. An organization that I’ve worked with in the past is the National Cyber Forensic and Training Alliance (NCFTA).

Putting the pieces together

How do businesses identify a fraud ring? There are three steps to get started. The first is reviewing and understanding the data. Fraudsters are lazy and want to replicate the process over and over again, and because of this there is always some piece of information that is repeated. It could be a name, an email address, device fingerprint, or similar.

The second step is tying the fraud ring together. This is done by creating rules to help identify the trends. Having rules in place to identify fraud rings allows businesses to easily pull stats together for their leadership.

Lastly, applying an acronym or name to the particular fraud ring and adding comments to the cases associated with a particular ring will help with post-investigation analysis.

Learning from the past

Before I became a consultant, I remember identifying a fraud ring that was submitting events with the same language pack and where the device fingerprint was staying consistent. Those events were being referred out for review and marked with the same note. At a post-mortem review, I was able to talk to the fraud ring we had seen, and it was easy to pull all events associated with this fraud ring because my team had marked the events with the same comments.

Another fraud ring example happened a few years ago. A client called me and said that they were under a fraud attack and this fraud ring was rotating the email handle. I reviewed the data and came up with a rule to catch this activity. Fraud rings will use email handle rotation to help them keep track of accounts that are opened or what emails they used in the past. By coupling the email handle rotation with an email verification service like Emailage, this insight could be very telling. I would assume that when fraud rings use email handle rotation these emails are new and have just been created.

These are just a few of the many fraud rings that I’ve encountered over the course of my career and I’m sure there will be a lot more in the years to come. The best advice I can give to anyone that reads this post is to understand the data that you are reviewing, look for anomalies within the data, ask questions and test your theories by running queries on the data that you’re reviewing. I would love to hear about the different fraud rings that you’ve encountered over your career.

Stay safe.

Contact us

Related Posts

For many banks, first-party fraud has become a silent drain on profitability. On paper, it often looks like classic credit risk: an account books, goes delinquent, and ultimately charges off. But a growing share of those early charge-offs is driven by something else entirely: customers who never intended to pay you back. That distinction matters. When first-party fraud is misclassified as credit risk, banks risk overstating credit loss, understating fraud exposure, and missing opportunities to intervene earlier.  In our recent Consumer Banker Association (CBA) partner webinar, “Fraud or Financial Distress? How to Differentiate Fraud and Credit Risk Early,” Experian shared new data and analytics to help fraud, risk and collections leaders see this problem more clearly. This post summarizes key themes from the webinar and points you to the full report and on-demand webinar for deeper insight. Why first-party fraud is a growing issue for banks  Banks are seeing rising early losses, especially in digital channels. But those losses do not always behave like traditional credit deterioration. Several trends are contributing:  More accounts opened and funded digitally  Increased use of synthetic or manipulated identities  Economic pressure on consumers and small businesses  More sophisticated misuse of legitimate credentials  When these patterns are lumped into credit risk, banks can experience:  Inflation of credit loss estimates and reserves  Underinvestment in fraud controls and analytics  Blurred visibility into what is truly driving performance   Treating first-party fraud as a distinct problem is the first step toward solving it.  First-payment default: a clearer view of intent  Traditional credit models are designed to answer, “Can this customer pay?” and “How likely are they to roll into delinquency over time?” They are not designed to answer, “Did this customer ever intend to pay?” To help banks get closer to that question, Experian uses first-payment default (FPD) as a key indicator. At a high level, FPD focuses on accounts that become seriously delinquent early in their lifecycle and do not meaningfully recover.  The principle is straightforward:  A legitimate borrower under stress is more likely to miss payments later, with periods of cure and relapse.  A first-party fraudster is more likely to default quickly and never get back on track.  By focusing on FPD patterns, banks can start to separate cases that look like genuine financial distress from those that are more consistent with deceptive intent.  The full report explains how FPD is defined, how it varies by product, and how it can be used to sharpen bank fraud and credit strategies. Beyond FPD: building a richer fraud signal  FPD alone is not enough to classify first-party fraud. In practice, leading banks are layering FPD with behavioral, application and identity indicators to build a more reliable picture. At a conceptual level, these indicators can include:  Early delinquency and straight-roll behavior  Utilization and credit mix that do not align with stated profile  Unusual income, employment, or application characteristics High-risk channels, devices, or locations at application Patterns of disputes or behaviors that suggest abuse  The power comes from how these signals interact, not from any one data point. The report and webinar walk through how these indicators can be combined into fraud analytics and how they perform across key banking products.  Why it matters across fraud, credit and collections Getting first-party fraud right is not just about fraud loss. It impacts multiple parts of the bank. Fraud strategy Well-defined quantification of first-party fraud helps fraud leaders make the case for investments in identity verification, device intelligence, and other early lifecycle controls, especially in digital account opening and digital lending. Credit risk and capital planning When fraud and credit losses are blended, credit models and reserves can be distorted. Separating first-party fraud provides risk teams a cleaner view of true credit performance and supports better capital planning.  Collections and customer treatment Customers in genuine financial distress need different treatment paths than those who never intended to pay. Better segmentation supports more appropriate outreach, hardship programs, and collections strategies, while reserving firmer actions for abuse.  Executive and board reporting Leadership teams increasingly want to understand what portion of loss is being driven by fraud versus credit. Credible data improves discussions around risk appetite and return on capital.  What leading banks are doing differently  In our work with financial institutions, several common practices have emerged among banks that are getting ahead of first-party fraud: 1. Defining first-party fraud explicitly They establish clear definitions and tracking for first-party fraud across key products instead of leaving it buried in credit loss categories.  2. Embedding FPD segmentation into analytics They use FPD-based views in their monitoring and reporting, particularly in the first 6–12 months on book, to better understand early loss behavior.  3. Unifying fraud and credit decisioning Rather than separate strategies that may conflict, they adopt a more unified decisioning framework that considers both fraud and credit risk when approving accounts, setting limits and managing exposure.  4. Leveraging identity and device data They bring in noncredit data — identity risk, device intelligence, application behavior — to complement traditional credit information and strengthen models.  5. Benchmarking performance against peers They use external benchmarks for first-party fraud loss rates and incident sizes to calibrate their risk posture and investment decisions.  The post is meant as a high-level overview. The real value for your teams will be in the detailed benchmarks, charts and examples in the full report and the discussion in the webinar.  If your teams are asking whether rising early losses are driven by fraud or financial distress, this is the moment to look deeper at first-party fraud.  Download the report: “First-party fraud: The most common culprit”  Explore detailed benchmarks for first-party fraud across banking products, see how first-payment default and other indicators are defined and applied, and review examples you can bring into your own internal discussions.  Download the report Watch the on-demand CBA webinar: “Fraud or Financial Distress? How to Differentiate Fraud and Credit Risk Early”  Hear Experian experts walk through real bank scenarios, FPD analytics and practical steps for integrating first-party fraud intelligence into your fraud, credit, and collections strategies.  Watch the webinar First-party fraud is likely already embedded in your early credit losses. With the right analytics and definitions, banks can uncover the true drivers, reduce hidden fraud exposure, and better support customers facing genuine financial hardship.

by Brittany Ennis 4 min read February 12, 2026

Discover why Experian’s unified fraud prevention platform, backed by decades of data stewardship and AI innovation, is the trusted choice for enterprises seeking scalable, compliant, and transparent identity verification solutions.

by Laura Davis 4 min read December 8, 2025

Learn how you can mitigate e-commerce fraud with identity verification and fraud prevention best practices.

by Theresa Nguyen 4 min read December 3, 2025