From Lone-Wolf to Pack Defense: Why Fraud Data Sharing Is the Trend Banks Should Lean Into

Fraud is increasingly a networked crime. The same Business Email Compromise (BEC) crew, call-center scam, or check-alteration playbook will sweep across regions and brands in waves—hitting multiple banks and credit unions within days. In 2024, the FBI’s IC3 recorded $16B+ in reported internet-enabled losses, up ~33% year over year—evidence that organized scammers are scaling faster than any single institution can respond. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint Center)

How modern fraud actually “scales” across institutions

• Reusable kits & scripts. Phishing- and fraud-as-a-service ecosystems let bad actors replicate the same trap at national scale, swapping only logos and URLs. Recent takedowns (e.g., INTERPOL’s 16shop) show how ready-made kits industrialize scams across brands. IBM’s threat reporting likewise highlights phishing kits as a top initial access vector. (Interpol, IBM)
• Channel-hopping campaigns. The ring that targets one bank’s online banking this week can pivot to another’s mobile app—or switch to SMS “smishing”—next week, using the same victim narratives (delivery issues, payroll updates, prize claims).
• Serial payees & destinations. Even when victims, devices, or account numbers change, the counterparties they send to (emails, handles, URLs, receiving accounts) often repeat—prime signals to share.
• Check-fraud waves. Mail-theft-driven check fraud has surged; FinCEN’s analysis logged $688M in suspicious activity tied to mail theft over just six months, illustrating how a tactic rolls across many FIs. (FinCEN.gov)
• Where losses concentrate. Survey data show debit-card and check fraud account for the largest shares of FI fraud losses—exactly the areas where fast cross-FI signal-sharing pays off. (ABA Banking Journal, FRB Services)

Why sharing fraud data works

1. It breaks the copy-paste loop. When Bank A flags a payee/email/device pattern tied to an active scam, Banks B–Z can step-up authentication or pause suspicious sends before the playbook repeats. Sector frameworks emphasize establishing a common language so fraud intel moves quickly and usefully between teams and firms. (FS-ISAC, ABA Banking Journal)
2. It speeds containment. Cross-FI alerts turn a one-off incident into early warning for everyone else—especially useful for rolling text/email scams and recurring check-deposit patterns.
3. It improves precision. Narrow, recent, fraud-only signals (e.g., “first-seen payee used in eight recent BEC cases”) lift catch-rates without blanketing good customers.

What to share (fraud-only)

Focus on fraud indicators, not customer dossiers:

• Counterparty signals: emails/phones, URLs/domains, handles/usernames, payee name variants, merchant/descriptor fragments.
• Event fingerprints: time, IP ranges/ASN, app versions.
• Case outcomes: “open or closed,” “potential loss”.

The takeaway

Fraudsters already operate as a network. Data sharing lets our defenses do the same—turning isolated incidents into sector-wide early warnings and shrinking the window where a scam can spread. A focused, privacy-conscious sharing program helps banks and credit unions stop copy-paste scams before they ripple across the industry.  Learn more about the SimpliRisk Peer Fraud Network today.

Sources & further reading

• FBI IC3 2024: reported internet-crime losses exceeded $16B (+33% YoY). (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internet Crime Complaint Center)
• FinCEN trend analysis: $688M in mail-theft-related check-fraud suspicious activity over six months. (FinCEN.gov)
• Debit-card & check fraud lead FI losses (survey/summary). (ABA Banking Journal, FRB Services)
• FS-ISAC “Cyber Fraud Prevention Framework” (common language & intel-sharing guidance). (FS-ISAC, ABA Banking Journal)
• Fraud kits scale repeatable scams across brands (INTERPOL 16shop takedown; IBM X-Force). (Interpol, IBM)