Chen ZamirHost
Even the word fraud might mean different things to different people or even the same person when considering different contexts.

So it might be that you've seen other names or other organizational structures to this.

The point I'm trying to make is around core responsibilities and skill sets an organization holds rather than how it's actually structured or named.

The second is fraud analytics, which owns rules and monitoring, writing detection logic, tracking performance, analyzing attack patterns, and producing reports.

The third is fraud strategy that sets the risk appetite, risk policies, and are likely in charge of vendor selection and architecture.

And the fourth and last is data science that builds and maintains machine learning and AI models.

But as I mentioned, not every fraud organization has all four, and there are a few reasons for that.

In other cases, especially in smaller organizations, some responsibilities are simply held by the team leader.

So in effect, the bare minimum for a fraud team and what you'll almost always say is just one function, fraud ops.

Meaning you can run a fraud function, even if probably inefficiently, with nothing more than investigators reviewing alerts.

At the same time, fraud analytics exist in a lot of midsize and larger teams, but it's often informal or undersized.

And that creates a potential oversight gap when these teams begin using AI agents to label cases, adjust rules, cluster alerts, all the things we talked about in the previous episodes.

Meaning, if you need analytical skills to monitor agentic-powered fraud systems, most teams are behind where they should be.

And if you're thinking of downsizing them even more, then you might be risking self-sabotage when adopting AI at the same time.

Even the word fraud might mean different things to different people or even the same person when considering different contexts.

So it might be that you've seen other names or other organizational structures to this.

The point I'm trying to make is around core responsibilities and skill sets an organization holds rather than how it's actually structured or named.

The second is fraud analytics, which owns rules and monitoring, writing detection logic, tracking performance, analyzing attack patterns, and producing reports.

The third is fraud strategy that sets the risk appetite, risk policies, and are likely in charge of vendor selection and architecture.

And the fourth and last is data science that builds and maintains machine learning and AI models.

But as I mentioned, not every fraud organization has all four, and there are a few reasons for that.

In other cases, especially in smaller organizations, some responsibilities are simply held by the team leader.

So in effect, the bare minimum for a fraud team and what you'll almost always say is just one function, fraud ops.

Meaning you can run a fraud function, even if probably inefficiently, with nothing more than investigators reviewing alerts.

At the same time, fraud analytics exist in a lot of midsize and larger teams, but it's often informal or undersized.

And that creates a potential oversight gap when these teams begin using AI agents to label cases, adjust rules, cluster alerts, all the things we talked about in the previous episodes.

Meaning, if you need analytical skills to monitor agentic-powered fraud systems, most teams are behind where they should be.

And if you're thinking of downsizing them even more, then you might be risking self-sabotage when adopting AI at the same time.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.