Solving the Fraud Problem: What is First-Party Fraud?

Updated: June 12, 2026 by Chris Ryan 5 min read October 31, 2023

In a series of articles, we talk about different types of fraud and how to best solve for them. This article will explore first-party fraud and how it’s similar to biting into a cookie you think is chocolate chip, only to find that it’s filled with raisins. The raisins in the cookie were hiding in plain sight, indistinguishable from chocolate chips without a closer look, much like first-party fraudsters.

What is first-party fraud?

First-party fraud refers to instances when an individual purposely misrepresents their identity in exchange for goods or services. Borrowers may falsify income, misrepresent employment or exploit credit systems without the intention of repaying. In the financial services industry, it’s often miscategorized as credit loss and written off as bad debt, which masks true fraud exposure and distorts credit-risk forecasting.

Read now: Download Experian’s latest research on first-party fraud

Common types of first-party fraud include:

  • Chargeback fraud: Also known as “friendly fraud,” chargeback fraud occurs when an individual knowingly makes a purchase with their credit card and then requests a chargeback from the issuer, claiming they didn’t authorize the purchase.
  • Application fraud: This takes place when an individual uses stolen or manipulated information to apply for a loan, credit card or job. In 2023, the employment sector accounted for 45% of all false document submissions — 70% of those who falsified their resumes still got hired.
  • Fronting: Done to get cheaper rates, this form of insurance fraud happens when a young or inexperienced individual is deliberately listed as a named driver, when they’re actually the main driver of the vehicle.
  • Goods lost in transit fraud (GLIT): This occurs when an individual claims the goods they purchased online did not arrive. To put it simply, the individual is getting a refund for something they actually already received.
  • Bust-out: This occurs when an individual builds what appears to be good credit behavior over time, making small purchases and on-time payments, and then suddenly maxes out their credit lines or abandons repayment entirely. The account looks legitimate until the “bust-out,” making it one of the hardest forms of first-party fraud to detect.
  • Credit washing: This happens when an individual falsely disputes legitimate accounts or debts to have them removed from their credit report. By portraying valid obligations as fraud, the individual can temporarily improve their credit standing or access new credit they wouldn’t qualify for otherwise.

A first-party fraudster can also recruit “money mules” — individuals who are persuaded to use their own information to obtain credit or merchandise on behalf of a larger fraud ring. This type of fraud has become especially prevalent as more consumers are active online.

Money mules constitute up to 0.3% of accounts at U.S. financial institutions, or an estimated $3 billion in fraudulent transfers.

How does it impact my organization?

Firstly, first-party fraud can cause significant losses. According to our latest study, first-party fraud costs $36.7 million annually on average. Nearly one-third of respondents in our annual Identity and Fraud survey reported that first-party fraud had increased stress on their businesses.

An imperfect first-party fraud solution can also strain relationships with good customers and hinder growth. When lenders have to interpret actions and behavior to assess customers, there’s a lot of room for error and losses. Those same losses hinder growth when misclassification inflates credit-risk estimates and masks true fraud exposure.

This type of fraud isn’t a single-time event, and it doesn’t occur at just one point in the customer lifecycle. It occurs when good customers develop fraudulent intent, when new applicants who have positive history with other lenders have recently changed circumstances or when seemingly good applicants have manipulated their identities to mask previous defaults.

Finally, misclassified first-party fraud losses can impact how your organization categorizes and manages risk – and that’s something that touches every department.

Solving the first-party fraud problem

First-party fraud detection requires a shift in how we think about the fraud problem. It starts with the ability to separate first-party fraud and credit risk, since they are often indiscernible at origination. 

To effectively combat first-party fraud, businesses should consider the following actions:

  • Define first-party fraud as its own risk: Don’t blend it into credit loss. Build targeted models that use behavioral, identity and activity signals. Start with first-payment default as a key indicator.
  • Use a longer risk window: A 12-month view helps surface early fraud patterns and supports stronger credit and fraud analysis.
  • Unify fraud, credit and compliance decisions: Coordinated strategies reduce blind spots and improve customer experience.
  • Upgrade your models: Apply machine learning and segment by factors like credit age or product type to better detect bust-outs and early defaults.
  • Combine credit and noncredit data: Use device intelligence, identity velocity and behavioral data to help separate fraud from financial hardship.
  • Benchmark against peers: Regular comparisons help assess exposure, validate performance and refine strategies.

How Experian can help

As we’ve already discussed, the fraud problem is complex. However with a partner like Experian, you can leverage the fraud risk management strategies required to perform a closer examination and the ability to differentiate between the types of fraud so you can determine the best course of action moving forward.

Additionally, our robust fraud management solutions can be used for synthetic identity fraud and account takeover fraud prevention, which can help you minimize customer friction to improve and deepen your relationships while preventing fraud. Contact us if you’d like to learn more about how Experian is using our identity expertise, data and analytics to improve identity resolution and detect and prevent all types of fraud.

Related Posts

How Consumer Vehicle Choices Are Shaping Automotive Loan Trends

Conversations about rising auto loan balances and higher monthly payments has often centered around increasing vehicle prices and elevated interest rates; and while those factors have undoubtedly played a role, another important piece of the puzzle is the type of vehicles consumers are choosing to purchase. According to Experian’s Automotive Consumer Trends Report: Q1 2026, consumers are continuing to opt for SUVs over other vehicle types, a trend that may be contributing to higher average loan amounts and monthly payments. SUVs accounted for 63.5% of all new retail vehicle registrations over the last 12 months, up from 62.8% a year ago. Additionally, more than 117 million SUVs were in operation across the United States in the first quarter of 2026, making up 42.2% of the market share. At the same time, traditional passenger cars continue to fall in share, coming in at 16.5%, a decrease from 18.4% last year. As consumers increasingly gravitate towards the larger vehicle segment, it reflects the ongoing desire for versatility, cargo capacity, and family-friendly functionality. Electrification’s growing role in consumer purchasing behavior Interestingly, electrified SUVs continue to gain traction, representing 27.7% of all new SUV registrations, these vehicles include battery-electric, hybrids, plug-in hybrids, and other alternative fuel types. Diving a bit deeper, the Tesla Model Y was the market share leader for new, retail electrified SUV registrations in the last 12 months, coming in at 15.8%. Rounding out the top five were Honda CR-V (9.6%), Toyota RAV4 (7.2%), Chevrolet Trax (7.2%), and Toyota Grand Highlander (3.4%). As model availability and familiarity with the electrification segment grows, the broader adoption of these vehicles are playing an increasingly important role in vehicle pricing and overall consumer demand. While average loan amounts and monthly payments are being driven by a combination of factors such as financing costs and consumer purchasing behavior, data in Q1 2026 demonstrates the continued interest in SUVs. This suggests that the industry’s shift toward larger vehicles is likely playing a meaningful role in today’s financing environment. To learn more about SUV insights, view the full Automotive Consumer Trends Report: Q1 2026 presentation.

Published: June 17, 2026 by Kirsten Von Busch
When New Data Impacts MBS Pricing: Student Loan Debt

In our previous post, we described the Current Second Lien Balance field, which is one of over 2,000 fields in the new Experian Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) dataset. We showed that the Current Second Lien Balance field meets our three-pronged materiality standard for new data delivery: New: Provides information not available in existing datasets (i.e., orthogonal to currently available data). Material: Impacts a sizeable portion of the MBS universe. Significant: Differentiates collateral performance by a large enough margin to influence trading and risk management decisions. In this article, we discuss another field that satisfies the above criteria: Student Loan Balance.  We evaluate this field in the context of these criteria. First, however, we provide a summary of the MLP dataset and how it compares to standard GSE loan-level data available today. Standard GSE Data vs. Experian Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) Data The MLP dataset contains thousands of fields describing mortgage performance from each borrower, loan, and property perspective, all refreshed monthly (including, amongst other things, new credit scores and refinance inquiry activity, loan performance, filed junior liens, and AVM values).  MLP differs from loan-level data provided byFreddie Mac, Fannie Mae, and Ginnie Mae, which the vast majority of market participants solely rely on, in a number of ways: Standard data provided by the GSEs and GNMA does not contain all the information necessary for accurate forecasting of mortgage prepayment and credit performance. Basic, critical fields like borrower’s current credit score and current junior liens on the property are missing. The new Mortgage Loan Performance (MLP) dataset from Experian contains borrower, loan, and property data fields covering the entire mortgage universe, including Agency, Non-Agency, and Esoteric mortgage products (CES, HELOC, Reverse), both securitized and non-securitized. MLP enables full three-dimensional (borrower + loan + property) tracking with persistent keys for borrower (before and after refinancing), loan (in securities/deals even after exit due to payoffs or buyouts, including before and after MSR sales), and property.  This enables end-to-end analysis of each borrower’s (and property’s) mortgage experience throughout their credit lifecycle. New, Material and Significant Field:  Student Loan Debt MLP contains a number of fields describing each mortgage borrower’s student debt load, including amounts in repayment, forbearance and collections; estimated interest rate, time remaining until forbearance expiration, and more. In the interest of simplicity, for this article we’ll focus on a single student loan-related field within MLP: Student Loans Balance, which is defined as the total balance on open non-deferred student trades reported in the last 3 months. Is Information Regarding Student Loans New to Markets? Standard loan-level data disclosed by the GSEs and GNMA contain no student-loan-specific fields. Theoretically, fields related to DTI at origination might capture some aspect of student loan debt. So, in the best case scenario for an investor relying solely on standard disclosure, a DTI value as of origination is provided -- yet is never updated as the loan seasons and the borrower’s debt and income change (see more here).  But in the case of federal student loan debt attached to mortgages originated from early 2020 to late 2023, the level of detail provided by disclosure may be even more unknown due to COVID-era repayment and reporting moratoriums. The student loan repayment moratorium was a temporary federal policy that paused required payments, set interest rates to 0%, and suspended collections on most federally-held student loans. The moratorium began in March 2020, with payments resuming in October 2023, making it approximately 3.5 years in duration—the longest consumer credit payment pause in U.S. history. (Source: NCUA ) During the moratorium, student loan-related debt loads may have been understated as federal loans were in a temporary state of $0 repayment.  As an alternative to leaving student loan debt completely out of DTI calculations, an imputed payment equal to only 0.50% of the outstanding balance was often used as a placeholder for a borrower’s DTI calculation. As a result, mortgages originated during the moratorium may have artificially low reported DTIs for borrowers with student loan debt, materially understating true post-moratorium debt .  Accordingly, prepayment risk for these loans is likely overstated in mainstream market models. Standard data only reports information related to the primary mortgage and does not include any details on the borrower’s other debts with the exception of DTI at origination, which is never updated throughout the life of the loan. In contrast, MLP provides a comprehensive view of the borrower’s full credit profile, including other obligations such as credit cards, mortgages on other properties, student loan balances, and much more. Is Student Loan debt material to the residential mortgage market? Approximately $11 trillion of residential mortgage loans were originated during the student loan payment moratorium (Source: Experian MLP Dataset), a period marked by historically low mortgage rates during the COVID era.  As discussed above, DTI data contained in standard market disclosure may be particularly inaccurate for these loans. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, a new report from the Federal Reserve of New York shows a rise in student loan default rates by age group.  Student l Of today’s $13 trillion in outstanding mortgage debt, more than 10% of that debt ($1.5 trillion) is associated with borrowers who carry student loan debt.  For these borrowers, the average amount of student loan debt outstanding is approximately $50,000, versus a mortgage balance of approximately ~$289,000. In other words, the average student loan debt balance is almost 20% of the mortgage balance for the average borrower who carries both. For this set of borrowers, the average monthly payment is approximately $400 for student loan vs. approximately $2,200 for 1st lien mortgage—so that monthly student loan payments are a significant debt load, approximately 20% of the monthly mortgage payment.  (Source:  Experian MLP Dataset) Is the effect of student loan debt a significant driver of performance? Figure 1 illustrates prepayments by student loan balance for a sample of loans drawn from MLP. The chart illustrates that borrowers with larger student loan balances prepay much more slowly, likely because some are effectively locked out of refinancing once student loan payments resume due to elevated DTI. The debt-to-income (DTI) ratio calculated using actual student loan payments may be significantly higher than the DTI calculated during the moratorium, in some cases exceeding GSE eligibility thresholds. As illustrated in Figure 1, for in-the-money (ITM) collateral, the differential between loans with material student loan balances (greater than $200,000) and loans with no student debt can reach up to 5 CPR. Notably, even for out-of-the-money (OTM) collateral, loans with student debt prepay 1 to 3 CPR slower, likely reflecting reduced mobility due to tighter financing constraints when purchasing a new home. Pools with otherwise similar prepayment characteristics may exhibit different prepayment behavior depending on the distribution of student loan exposure within their collateral. In addition, because loans with student debt tend to prepay more slowly, this effect increases over time due to burnout: loans without student debt prepay and exit the pools more quickly, leaving a higher concentration of slower-paying loans behind.  Given that 10% of the $13 trillion outstanding mortgage market is associated with borrowers who have student loans (Source:  Experian MLP dataset)—and that student loans have a meaningful impact on prepayments—many pools issued between March 2020 and October 2023 may be subject to this student loan debt CPR throttle, and therefore mispriced by investors relying exclusively on standard market data. Fig 1. Prepayment S-Curve: Student Loans Balance Source:  Experian MLP dataset hosted on IVolatility Data-Driven Platform   _____________________________________________________ Michael Pyatski advises MBS traders, portfolio managers, quants, risk managers, loan originators, and technology professionals on making informed, data-driven business decisions that drive revenue growth, enhance risk management, and reduce trading costs. With more than 15 years of experience as an Agency RMBS trader—including serving as Head of the Proprietary Trading Desk at BNP Paribas—Michael developed and successfully implemented relative-value, data-driven profitable trading strategies to capture market opportunities embedded in data but not fully priced by the market. His trading experience, combined with a Ph.D. in econometrics, led him to found the Data-Driven Portal (https://datadrivenportal.com/), a platform that provides advanced technology for MBS trading and risk management. The platform’s No-Model Data-Driven technology leverages big data, econometric analysis, and AI to help traders identify relative-value opportunities in RMBS markets and generate above-market, risk-adjusted returns. _____________________________________________________

Published: June 17, 2026 by Perry DeFelice
Empowering merchants to reduce first-party fraud and chargebacks

Reduce first-party fraud and chargebacks with data-driven strategies that help merchants prevent disputes, protect revenue and improve customer trust.

Published: June 15, 2026 by Charles Hunter

Subscribe to our thought leadership

Enter your name and email for the latest updates.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Subscribe to our thought leadership

Don't miss out on the latest industry trends and insights!
Subscribe