FINANCIAL FRAUD DETECTION USING VALUE AT RISK WITH MACHINE LEARNING IN SKEWED DATA
Main Article Content
Abstract
The significant losses that banks and other financial organizations suffered due to new bank account (NBA) fraud are alarming as the number of online banking service users increases. The inherent skewness and rarity of NBA fraud instances have been a major challenge to the machine learning (ML) models and happen when non-fraud instances outweigh the fraud instances, which leads the ML models to overlook and erroneously consider fraud as non-fraud instances. Such errors can erode the confidence and trust of customers. Existing studies consider fraud patterns instead of potential losses of NBA fraud risk features while addressing the skewness of fraud datasets. The detection of NBA fraud is proposed in this research within the context of value-at-risk as a risk measure that considers fraud instances as a worst-case scenario. Value-at-risk uses historical simulation to estimate potential losses of risk features and model them as a skewed tail distribution. The risk-return features obtained from value-at-risk were classified using ML on the bank account fraud (BAF) Dataset. The value-at-risk handles the fraud skewness using an adjustable threshold probability range to attach weight to the skewed NBA fraud instances. A novel detection rate (DT) metric that considers risk fraud features was used to measure the performance of the fraud detection model. An improved fraud detection model is achieved using a K-nearest neighbor with a true positive (TP) rate of 0.95 and a DT rate of 0.9406. Under an acceptable loss tolerance in the banking sector, value-at-risk presents an intelligent approach for establishing data-driven criteria for fraud risk management.
Downloads
Metrics
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
References
ACFE. Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) 2022 Report to the Nations. Accessed: 2023. [Online]. Available: https://legacy.acfe.com/ report-to-the-nations/2022/
T. Ashfaq, R. Khalid, A. S. Yahaya, S. Aslam, A. T. Azar, S. Alsafari, and I. A. Hameed, ‘‘A machine learning and blockchain based efficient fraud detection mechanism,’’ Sensors, vol. 22, no. 19, p. 7162, Sep. 2022.
N. S. Alfaiz and S. M. Fati, ‘‘Enhanced credit card fraud detection model using machine learning,’’ Electronics, vol. 11, no. 4, 662, 2022.
A. Alfaadhel, I. Almomani, and M. Ahmed, ‘‘Risk-based cybersecurity compliance assessment system (RC2AS),’’ Appl. Sci., vol. 13, no. 10, p. 6145, May 2023.
D. Sarma, W. Alam, I. Saha, M. N. Alam, M. J. Alam, and S. Hossain, ‘‘Bank fraud detection using community detection algorithm,’’ in Proc. 2nd Int. Conf. Inventive Res. Comput. Appl. (ICIRCA), Jul. 2020, pp. 642–646.
A. Pagano, ‘‘Digital account opening fraud on demand deposit accounts: An assessment of available technology,’’ Ph.D. thesis, Utica College, Utica, NY, USA, 2020.
Shuftipro. New Account Fraud—A New Breed of Scams. Accessed: 2023. [Online]. Available: https://shuftipro.com/reports-whitepapers/newaccount-
fraud.pdf
R. Sasirekha, B. Kanisha, and S. Kaliraj, ‘‘Study on class imbalance problem with modified KNN for classification,’’ in Intelligent Data Communication Technologies and Internet of Things, vol. 101. Singapore: Springer, 2022, pp. 207–217, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16- 7610-9_15.
P. Vanini, S. Rossi, E. Zvizdic, and T. Domenig, ‘‘Online payment fraud: From anomaly detection to risk management,’’ Financial Innov., vol. 9, no. 1, p. 66, Mar. 2023, doi: 10.1186/s40854-023-00470-w.
X. Zhu, X. Ao, Z. Qin, Y. Chang, Y. Liu, Q. He, and J. Li, ‘‘Intelligent financial fraud detection practices in post-pandemic era,’’ Innovation, vol. 2, no. 4, Nov. 2021, Art. no. 100176, doi: 10.1016/j.xinn.2021.100176.
M. Monge, C. Poza, and S. Borgia, ‘‘A proposal of a suspicion of tax fraud indicator based on Google Trends to foresee Spanish tax revenues,’’ Int. Econ., vol. 169, pp. 1–12, May 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.inteco.2021.11.002. 12] S. Kannan and K. Somasundaram, ‘‘Autoregressive-based outlier algorithm to detect money laundering activities,’’ J. Money Laundering Control, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 190–202, May 2017, doi: 10.1108/jmlc-07- 2016-0031.
B. Xiao, B. Lei,W. Lan, and B. Guo, ‘‘A blockwise network autoregressive model with application for fraud detection,’’ Ann. Inst. Stat. Math., vol. 74, no. 6, pp. 1043–1065, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10463-022-00822-w.
G. Moschini, R. Houssou, J. Bovay, and S. Robert-Nicoud, ‘‘Anomaly and fraud detection in credit card transactions using the ARIMA model,’’ in Proc. 7th Int. Conf. Time Forecasting, Jul. 2021, p. 56, doi: 10.3390/engproc2021005056.
A. A. Alhashmi, A. M. Alashjaee, A. A. Darem, A. F. Alanazi, and R. Effghi, ‘‘An ensemble-based fraud detection model for financial transaction cyber threat classification and countermeasures,’’ Eng., Technol. Appl. Sci. Res., vol. 13, no. 6, pp. 12433–12439, Dec. 2023, doi: 10.48084/etasr.6401.