Protected: How AI-powered banking tools are failing vulnerable customers
June 15, 2026
No Comments
There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.
15 July 2025
by Payments Intelligence
The Financial Crime 360 2025 survey captures perspectives from across the global financial crime prevention ecosystem, with particular strength in the UK market that represents the core of European financial services. The sample reflects the reality of modern financial crime prevention: 66% of respondents operate from the United Kingdom, establishing a strong domestic foundation whilst incorporating international perspectives from 32 additional countries.
Geographically, the research spans six continents, with robust representation from the UK’s financial centres (London, Edinburgh, Manchester) and meaningful participation from the United States (4%), Ireland (2.7%), and major European markets including Germany, Netherlands, and France. Professional distribution ranges from emerging fintech companies to major multinational financial institutions across 33 countries.
The methodology combines quantitative analysis of threat patterns with qualitative assessment of strategic responses. Questions address both immediate challenges (fraud prevention, regulatory compliance, technology readiness) and forward-looking opportunities (AI implementation, collaborative defence strategies, regulatory evolution).
This dual perspective—current threat realities alongside future prevention strategies—provides unique insight into how financial crime professionals are balancing immediate operational pressures with long-term strategic positioning in an evolving threat landscape.
The survey captures perspectives from diverse financial crime professionals across all organisational levels, with senior leadership strongly represented. Nearly three-quarters of respondents (72.8%) hold VP-level positions or above, with C-level executives comprising 29.1% and VP/Director/Head roles representing 43.7% of the sample. Job titles span executive leadership, compliance management, risk oversight, and technical implementation roles. This diversity ensures comprehensive coverage of strategic decision-making, operational implementation, and technical expertise within the financial crime prevention ecosystem.
Non-bank financial institutions dominated the survey respondents, accounting for nearly one in five participants (20%). This reflects the growing influence of fintech companies, payment processors, and alternative financial service providers in shaping industry perspectives on financial crime prevention.
Technology and solution providers represented the second-largest group at 17%, highlighting the critical role of tech companies in developing anti-financial crime tools and infrastructure. Professional services firms and traditional banking institutions each comprised 15% of respondents, demonstrating balanced participation from both advisory services and established financial institutions.
The remaining eight categories showed more modest representation, with financial crime and compliance services accounting for 11% of participants. Notably, emerging sectors such as digital assets and crypto, open banking, and cross-border payments each captured 2.5% to 4.4% of respondents, reflecting their nascent but growing importance in the payments ecosystem’s fight against financial crime.
Fraud emerged as the overwhelming priority concern, with more than seven in ten respondents (72) identifying it as a top challenge. This underscores the persistent threat that fraudulent activities pose across all sectors of the payments ecosystem, from traditional banking to emerging fintech services.
AI-enabled financial crime ranked as the second most pressing issue, cited by 58% of participants. This highlights growing industry anxiety about criminals leveraging artificial intelligence to enhance their capabilities, from sophisticated social engineering attacks to automated money laundering schemes.
Anti-money laundering ranked as the top three challenges at 36%, reflecting ongoing difficulties in meeting regulatory requirements while managing operational costs. The significant gap between fraud concerns and AML compliance suggests that immediate transactional threats are perceived as more urgent than regulatory adherence.
Data governance (32%) and regulation (31%) followed closely, indicating that firms continue to struggle with managing information effectively and navigating complex regulatory landscapes in their efforts to prevent financial crime.
Identity fraud emerged as the dominant threat, affecting nearly half (48%) of respondents, highlighting the persistent challenge of criminals exploiting stolen or synthetic identities to circumvent institutional defences. This substantial prevalence highlights the critical importance of robust identity verification systems and ‘know your customer’ procedures in an increasingly digital financial landscape.
The significant proportion of “other” fraud types (22%) suggests the evolving and diverse nature of fraudulent activities, indicating that criminals continue to develop novel approaches that fall outside traditional categorisation frameworks. This adaptability poses ongoing challenges for fraud prevention teams who must remain vigilant against emerging threats.
Misuse of facility ranked third at 14%, reflecting scenarios where legitimate accounts or services are exploited for unauthorised purposes. Facility takeover rates increased to 11%, demonstrating the continued vulnerability of existing customer accounts to criminal infiltration.
Insider threats, whilst representing the smallest category at 4%, remain a critical concern given the privileged access and potential for significant damage that internal actors possess, requiring robust internal controls and monitoring systems.
Authorised push payment fraud topped the list of most impactful fraud types, affecting 22% of respondents’ businesses most significantly. This reflects the continuing challenge of APP fraud, where criminals manipulate victims into authorising legitimate payments to fraudulent accounts, making detection and prevention particularly difficult for financial institutions. The new compulsory APP reimbursement scheme, introduced to address this growing threat, is explored in detail in our separate payments intelligence analysis.
Identity fraud ranked second at 18%, highlighting the persistent threat of criminals using stolen or synthetic identities to open accounts and conduct fraudulent transactions. The substantial impact of identity fraud underscores the importance of robust know your customer procedures and identity verification systems.
Digital channel fraud has emerged as a significant concern, with internet, telephone, and mobile banking fraud affecting 11% of respondents the most severely. Card-not-present fraud matched this figure, reflecting the ongoing challenges of securing remote transactions in an increasingly digital payments landscape.
AI-enabled fraud, whilst ranking fifth at 9%, represents an emerging threat that mirrors concerns identified in the broader challenges question. Account takeover fraud (8%) and chargeback fraud (6%) rounded out the most commonly cited high-impact types of fraud.
Identity deepfakes were the primary concern for respondents regarding AI fraud, with nearly two-thirds (64%) identifying this as their top worry. This overwhelming focus reflects growing concerns about criminals using artificial intelligence to create convincing fake identities, voice recordings, and video content, thereby bypassing traditional verification processes and deceiving both institutions and consumers.
Automated personal data collection ranked as the second most concerning threat at 20%, highlighting fears about AI systems being weaponised to harvest and analyse personal information at scale. This capability enables fraudsters to build detailed profiles for targeted attacks and sophisticated social engineering campaigns.
Chatbot-powered fraud accounted for 11% of responses, indicating concerns about AI-driven conversational tools being deployed to conduct more convincing phishing attempts and customer manipulation. The relatively lower percentage suggests that whilst recognised as a threat, chatbot fraud is viewed as less immediate than the identity and data collection risks.
The concentration of concern around deepfakes underscores the payments industry’s recognition that synthetic media poses the most significant near-term challenge to existing fraud prevention frameworks.
Bank limits emerged as the dominant approach to implementing authorised push payment (APP) fraud rules, with three in five organisations (60%) adopting this measure. This preference for bank-imposed transaction limits reflects the industry’s focus on controlling exposure through institutional risk management rather than individual transaction restrictions.
The remaining implementation strategies showed remarkably similar adoption rates, with ad valorem fees, customer review processes, and transaction caps each implemented by 11% of responding organisations. This even distribution suggests that whilst bank limits represent the preferred primary approach, organisations are exploring diverse secondary strategies to complement their APP fraud prevention frameworks.
Fixed fees proved the least popular implementation method at just 3%, indicating a limited appetite for flat-rate charging structures in APP fraud mitigation. The data suggests that organisations favour either institutional control mechanisms or percentage-based approaches over fixed-cost models.
The high response rate to this question (128 of 158 total respondents) demonstrates strong industry engagement with the implementation of APP rules, reflecting the significant operational impact these regulations have had across the payments ecosystem.
Industry uncertainty dominated responses when asked about acceptable fraud loss levels, with three in five respondents (60%) stating they were unsure. This overwhelming uncertainty reflects the complexity of balancing fraud prevention costs against acceptable losses, suggesting many organisations lack clear frameworks for determining optimal risk tolerance thresholds.
Among those expressing a view, more than a quarter (27%) believed acceptable losses should remain below £500 million annually. This conservative stance indicates significant appetite for aggressive fraud reduction, even if prevention costs exceed current loss levels.
Higher tolerance levels attracted minimal support, with just 8% accepting losses up to £1 billion and only 13% combined acceptance for losses between £2 billion and £5 billion. The sharp decline in acceptance at higher loss levels demonstrates industry preference for stringent fraud control.
The data reveals a sector grappling with fundamental questions about cost-benefit analysis in fraud prevention. The predominant uncertainty suggests many organisations may benefit from clearer industry guidance on establishing acceptable loss parameters relative to prevention investment and customer experience considerations.
Cloud infrastructure topped technology investment priorities, with nearly three in five organisations (60%) focusing resources on cloud-based solutions. This preference reflects the industry’s recognition that scalable, flexible infrastructure forms the foundation for effective financial crime prevention capabilities.
Machine learning and artificial intelligence ranked as the second highest priority at 53%, demonstrating strong industry commitment to leveraging advanced analytics for fraud detection and prevention. The substantial investment in ML and AI technologies aligns with earlier survey findings highlighting AI-enabled fraud as a major concern.
Digital identity solutions attracted investment from 39% of respondents, indicating growing recognition of the need for robust identity verification systems. This focus on digital identity infrastructure supports efforts to combat identity fraud, which ranked as the second most impactful fraud type affecting businesses.
Automation and enhanced due diligence received more modest attention at 18% and 5% respectively. The relatively lower investment in these areas suggests organisations are prioritising foundational technologies and advanced analytics over process automation and traditional compliance enhancement tools.
Nearly two-thirds of respondents (63%) believe their current fraud technology is fit for purpose, suggesting moderate confidence in existing systems across the payments industry. This majority view suggests that most organisations believe their current technological infrastructure provides sufficient protection against financial crime threats.
However, more than one-third (37%) expressed concerns about the effectiveness of their technology, representing a significant minority that questioned their fraud prevention capabilities. This substantial proportion of organisations doubting their systems’ adequacy highlights ongoing challenges in keeping pace with evolving fraud threats.
The mixed assessment reflects the complex balance between technological advancement and emerging fraud risks. While the majority express confidence, the sizable minority of concerned organisations suggests that the industry faces a technology adequacy gap that could leave some firms vulnerable to sophisticated attacks.
Next-generation AI and automation dominated improvement suggestions, accounting for two in five recommendations (40%) based on sentiment analysis of open-text responses. This emphasis on advanced artificial intelligence capabilities reflects the industry’s recognition that current AI implementations require significant enhancements to combat increasingly sophisticated fraud threats effectively.
Other technology ideas represented more than a quarter of suggestions (27%), indicating diverse thinking about technological solutions beyond mainstream AI approaches. This category suggests organisations are exploring innovative alternatives and complementary technologies to strengthen their fraud prevention arsenals.
Smarter data and analytics attracted nearly one in five suggestions (19%), highlighting ongoing challenges in extracting actionable insights from existing data sources. This focus on analytical enhancement indicates many organisations possess substantial data but lack the tools to leverage it effectively for fraud detection.
System integration improvements garnered limited attention at 6%, whilst regulatory alignment and human capital development each received minimal focus at 4% and 2% respectively. The concentration of suggestions around advanced technology rather than process or compliance improvements demonstrates a clear industry preference for technological solutions over operational enhancements.
Digital identity automation emerged as the most mature technology area, with more than one-third of organisations (36%) reporting full preparedness and 63% achieving advanced or full readiness levels. This strong performance reflects the critical importance of identity verification in fraud prevention and suggests substantial industry investment in this foundational capability.
Analytics and big data demonstrated solid maturity, with 56% of respondents reporting advanced or full preparedness. The strong performance in data analytics capabilities indicates most organisations have successfully established frameworks for processing and analysing large datasets for fraud detection purposes.
Blockchain and distributed ledger technology showed moderate readiness levels, with 40% achieving advanced or full preparation. However, nearly three in ten organisations (29%) remain at basic or unprepared levels, suggesting uneven adoption of these emerging technologies across the sector.
AI and machine learning systems revealed the greatest readiness gap, with 55% of organisations reporting basic or no preparation despite earlier findings showing this as a top investment priority. Only 22% achieved advanced or full readiness, highlighting a significant disconnect between strategic intent and current capabilities.
Other specific requests dominated vendor improvement suggestions at 28% of responses based on sentiment analysis of open-text feedback, indicating diverse and highly specific needs that don’t fit standard categories. This substantial portion of bespoke requirements suggests the payments industry seeks tailored solutions rather than one-size-fits-all approaches from technology vendors.
Building better AI capabilities ranked as the second most requested improvement at 23%, aligning with earlier findings that showed AI readiness gaps across the industry. This emphasis on AI enhancement reflects the disconnect between strategic investment priorities and current technological capabilities identified in previous responses.
Enabling data sharing attracted 14% of requests, highlighting ongoing challenges in information exchange between organisations and systems. This focus on data connectivity suggests many firms recognise that isolated datasets limit their fraud detection effectiveness and seek vendor solutions to break down information silos.
Innovation acceleration (8%) and market education (7%) received moderate attention, whilst security strengthening and integration improvements each garnered 5% of requests. Affordability concerns attracted 5% of suggestions, indicating cost remains a consideration but not the primary barrier to technology adoption.
The concentration of requests around AI development and data sharing capabilities reflects the industry’s focus on advanced analytical capabilities rather than basic infrastructure improvements.
Rules-based monitoring systems dominate current fraud prevention deployments, with 64% of organisations running these traditional detection methods. This widespread adoption reflects the maturity and reliability of rule-based approaches, despite earlier findings showing strong investment interest in more advanced technologies.
Anti-money laundering programmes rank as the second most deployed strategy at 60% of organisations, demonstrating comprehensive regulatory compliance across the industry. The high AML deployment rate reflects mandatory requirements and established implementation frameworks that have driven widespread adoption.
Machine learning monitoring systems operate in 51% of organisations, indicating substantial progress in deploying advanced analytical capabilities. However, this represents a notable gap compared to rules-based systems, suggesting many firms are still transitioning from traditional to intelligent detection methods.
AI solutions show deployment in 45% of organisations, closely following machine learning implementations. The similar deployment rates between ML and AI technologies suggest these are often implemented together as complementary analytical capabilities rather than standalone solutions.
Customer education programmes operate in 35% of organisations, representing the lowest deployment rate amongst major strategies. This limited adoption contrasts with earlier findings showing customer education as a significant priority, suggesting many organisations rea
Current financial crime policy effectiveness received a lukewarm assessment from industry respondents, with a mean score of 5.1 out of 10 and a median of 5.0. This middling performance suggests widespread dissatisfaction with existing regulatory frameworks and their practical implementation across the payments sector.
More than half of respondents (57%) rated policy effectiveness below 5.5, indicating negative sentiment towards current approaches. Only 41% expressed positive views with scores above 5.5, demonstrating limited confidence in existing policy measures amongst industry participants.
The distribution reveals particular concentration around lower-middle scores, with 16% rating effectiveness at 4 out of 10 and equal proportions (15% each) selecting scores of 5 and 6. This clustering suggests many organisations view current policies as partially effective but fundamentally inadequate for addressing contemporary financial crime challenges.
Higher effectiveness ratings remained scarce, with only 16% of respondents scoring policies at 8 or above. The limited proportion of highly positive assessments indicates substantial room for improvement in policy design and implementation.
This lukewarm policy sentiment is further exemplified by mixed views on UK fraud regulation, specifically, with just over half of respondents (54%) believing that the current UK fraud regulation is fit for purpose. However, the narrow majority masks significant industry division, with a substantial 46% expressing doubts about regulatory adequacy.
The closely divided assessment reveals a fundamental disagreement within the payments sector about regulatory effectiveness. While a slim majority expresses confidence in UK frameworks, the sizable minority of sceptical voices suggests widespread concern about regulatory gaps or implementation challenges.
This polarised view contrasts with the more consistently negative sentiment observed in the broader policy effectiveness assessment, where 57% rated overall policy performance below satisfactory levels. The relatively better performance of UK-specific regulation compared to general policy effectiveness suggests some recognition of domestic regulatory strengths, even amongst those critical of broader industry policies.
The narrow margin between positive and negative assessments indicates the UK regulatory framework sits at a critical juncture, with industry opinion finely balanced between acceptance and concern. This division suggests that whilst current regulation may be broadly functional, significant improvements remain necessary to achieve widespread industry confidence.
Other specific reform ideas dominated suggestions at 30% of responses based on sentiment analysis of open-text feedback, indicating highly varied and specialised reform needs that don’t align with standard regulatory categories. This substantial portion of bespoke suggestions reflects the complexity of regulatory challenges facing different segments of the payments ecosystem.
Embracing AI and innovation attracted 27% of reform suggestions, highlighting industry frustration with regulatory frameworks that struggle to accommodate rapidly evolving technologies. This emphasis on innovation-friendly regulation aligns with earlier findings showing AI as a top investment priority, whilst current AI readiness remains limited.
Regulating big tech platforms garnered 13% of suggestions, reflecting growing concern about the market power and regulatory treatment of major technology companies operating in the payments space. This focus suggests industry desire for more balanced competitive conditions between traditional financial institutions and technology giants.
Breaking down data silos attracted 11% of reform ideas, emphasising the need for regulatory frameworks that facilitate information sharing for fraud prevention. This priority aligns directly with earlier findings, which show that data sharing is a key vendor improvement request.
Education focus (6%) and APP fraud rule fixes (6%) received equal attention, whilst calls for faster regulation (5%) and tougher criminal enforcement (2%) attracted minimal support, suggesting industry priorities lie in structural rather than procedural reforms.
Half of respondents (50%) expressed positive sentiment about the industry’s ambitions to design out economic crime, significantly outweighing the 17% who held negative views. This optimistic outlook suggests widespread belief that the payments sector possesses both the capability and commitment to tackle financial crime effectively.
However, one-third of participants (33%) remained neutral, indicating substantial uncertainty about the industry’s prospects for success. This sizeable middle ground suggests many professionals adopt a wait-and-see approach, potentially influenced by the mixed assessments of current policy effectiveness and technology readiness identified earlier.
The net optimism score of +52 demonstrates clear positive sentiment across the industry, with positive responses outnumbering negative by nearly three to one. Only 4% expressed very negative views, while 43% maintained a positive outlook, suggesting broad confidence in the long-term direction of the industry despite current challenges.
The optimistic sentiment contrasts notably with earlier lukewarm assessments of current policy effectiveness and technology readiness gaps. This disconnect suggests industry professionals distinguish between present-day limitations and future potential, maintaining faith in eventual progress despite acknowledging current shortcomings.
Other specific reasons dominated explanations for optimism levels at 22% of responses based on sentiment analysis of open-text feedback, indicating highly personalised and nuanced views about the industry’s prospects that don’t fit standard categories. This substantial portion of bespoke reasoning reflects the complexity of factors influencing individual assessments of industry progress.
Technology optimism emerged as the strongest thematic driver at 15% of responses, with participants expressing confidence that technological advancement will ultimately enable effective economic crime prevention. This faith in technological solutions aligns with earlier findings showing substantial investment priorities in AI and cloud infrastructure.
Three equally weighted concerns each attracted 11% of responses: criminals always staying ahead, industry wake-up calls driving change, and following financial incentives as the key to progress. This tripartite split reveals fundamental disagreements about whether technological arms races favour defenders or attackers, and whether industry motivation stems from genuine commitment or financial necessity.
Pessimistic themes collectively garnered significant attention, with “mission impossible” sentiments (7%), regulatory obstacles (6%), and slow reaction times (5%) combining to represent 18% of reasoning patterns. However, positive themes including progress recognition (5%) and collaborative approaches (4%) provided counterbalancing optimism.
Other specific reasons dominated explanations for optimism levels at 22% of responses based on sentiment analysis of open-text feedback, indicating highly personalised and nuanced views about the industry’s prospects that don’t fit standard categories. This substantial portion of bespoke reasoning reflects the complexity of factors influencing individual assessments of industry progress.
Technology optimism emerged as the strongest thematic driver at 15% of responses, with participants expressing confidence that technological advancement will ultimately enable effective economic crime prevention. This faith in technological solutions aligns with earlier findings showing substantial investment priorities in AI and cloud infrastructure.
Three equally weighted concerns each attracted 11% of responses: criminals always staying ahead, industry wake-up calls driving change, and following financial incentives as the key to progress. This tripartite split reveals fundamental disagreements about whether technological arms races favour defenders or attackers, and whether industry motivation stems from genuine commitment or financial necessity.
Pessimistic themes collectively garnered significant attention, with “mission impossible” sentiments (7%), regulatory obstacles (6%), and slow reaction times (5%) combining to represent 18% of reasoning patterns. However, positive themes including progress recognition (5%) and collaborative approaches (4%) provided counterbalancing optimism.
The payments industry demonstrates a strong commitment to combating economic crime, with nearly half of organisations planning to increase fraud prevention spending over the next 12 months. The data reveals 49.7% of firms are boosting their budgets, with 32% planning increases up to 25% and a further 9% planning more substantial rises above 25%.
This investment surge contrasts sharply with cost-cutting elsewhere, as only 13% of organisations plan to reduce fraud prevention spending. The majority of firms maintain current levels (19%) or remain uncertain about future budgets (19%), suggesting cautious optimism rather than complacency.
The net spending sentiment strongly favours increased investment, with organisations increasing budgets outnumbering those reducing by a significant margin. This trend reflects growing recognition that fraud threats are escalating faster than current defences, requiring sustained financial commitment.
The substantial proportion of firms planning budget increases above 25% indicates many organisations believe current fraud prevention capabilities require significant enhancement to address evolving threats effectively.
The payments industry demonstrates a strong commitment to combating economic crime, with nearly half of organisations planning to increase fraud prevention spending over the next 12 months. The data reveals 49.7% of firms are boosting their budgets, with 32% planning increases up to 25% and a further 18% planning more substantial rises above 25%.
This investment surge contrasts sharply with cost-cutting elsewhere, as only 13% of organisations plan to reduce fraud prevention spending. The majority of firms maintaining current levels (19%) or remaining uncertain about future budgets (18%) suggests cautious optimism rather than complacency.
The net spending sentiment strongly favours increased investment, with organisations increasing budgets outnumbering those reducing by a significant margin. This trend reflects growing recognition that fraud threats are escalating faster than current defences, requiring sustained financial commitment.
The substantial proportion of firms planning budget increases above 25% indicates many organisations believe current fraud prevention capabilities require significant enhancement to address evolving threats effectively.
Other specific education ideas dominated, accounting for 36% of responses based on sentiment analysis of open-text feedback, indicating diverse and tailored approaches to customer education that extend beyond conventional fraud awareness programmes. This substantial portion of bespoke suggestions reflects recognition that different customer segments require specialised educational interventions.
Traditional education methods attracted 28% of suggestions, demonstrating continued industry confidence in established awareness campaigns and educational materials. This substantial support for conventional approaches suggests many organisations believe fundamental fraud education remains inadequately delivered to customers.
AI threat awareness garnered 11% of suggestions, reflecting growing industry concern about customers’ vulnerability to artificial intelligence-enabled fraud. This focus aligns with earlier findings showing identity deepfakes as the primary AI fraud concern amongst industry professionals.
Smart communication strategies attracted 7% of suggestions, indicating recognition that effective customer education requires sophisticated messaging approaches rather than generic warnings. Social media education received 5% of responses, highlighting awareness of fraud risks associated with social platforms.
Identity protection (4%), money management skills (3%), and personal accountability messaging (3%) received modest attention, whilst real-time alerts and practical examples attracted minimal focus at 1% and 2% respectively. The concentration around traditional methods and AI awareness suggests industry prioritises both foundational education and emerging threat preparation over behavioural change initiatives.
Industry media dominated information consumption at 73% of organisations, establishing itself as the primary channel for financial crime intelligence and industry updates. This preference for media sources reflects the need for timely, accessible information that can be consumed regularly rather than through scheduled events or formal publications.
Industry reports ranked as the second most utilised source at 67% of organisations, indicating a strong appetite for detailed analytical content and comprehensive research. The high usage of formal reports suggests organisations value in-depth analysis and data-driven insights to inform their financial crime strategies.
Conferences and events attracted 61% of organisations, demonstrating continued importance of face-to-face networking and knowledge sharing within the financial crime community. The substantial but lower percentage compared to media sources suggests that whilst events remain valuable, they cannot match the accessibility and frequency of digital information channels.
Financial institution collaboration showed significant usage at 44% of organisations, highlighting the role of peer-to-peer information sharing in combating financial crime. This collaborative approach reflects recognition that shared intelligence enhances collective defence capabilities against criminal networks.
Law enforcement engagement attracted minimal attention at only 5% of organisations, suggesting limited formal information exchange between the private sector and official agencies. This low engagement rate suggests potential opportunities for enhancing public-private partnerships in financial crime intelligence sharing.
The 2025 Financial Crime 360 findings highlight an industry at a crossroads: facing intensifying threats, mixed technology readiness, and regulatory uncertainty. Senior leaders must navigate these dynamics with clarity and focus. Key imperatives include:
Financial crime prevention is no longer a back-office compliance function—it is a front-line business priority. It requires active, joined-up leadership across strategy, product development, compliance, and operations. Leaders prepared to invest in forward-looking technologies and collaborative approaches will be best positioned to design out economic crime while preserving business growth and customer confidence.
There is no excerpt because this is a protected post.
UK merchants expect agentic commerce to grow rapidly, but uncertainty around liability, fraud, and standards is slowing readiness.
Stablecoins are moving into mainstream finance, reshaping payments, trade, and regulation as institutions explore faster, programmable settlement.
You need to be logged in to do this!
