Fraud & Insider Risk · Fraud Typology Mapper
Map incident facts against established fraud typologies
Analyze your transaction data and incident descriptions against established fraud typologies — see which patterns the facts resemble, which red flags are present, and what evidence is still missing.
Illustrative content · Public sources only
| Red flag | Related typology | Strength |
|---|---|---|
| Round-amount transfers near threshold | Structuring pattern | Medium |
| Vendor created shortly before payment | Shell / fictitious vendor | Medium |
| Approval by a single insider | Internal override pattern | High |
| Refund volume spike | Refund abuse pattern | Low |
A decision-ready artifact
What you get
A focused brief that keeps the evidence, uncertainty, and next actions visible.
- Structured summary of the incident facts as provided
- Typology matches with the reasoning stated per match
- Red flag inventory tied to specific data points
- Strength and confidence notes per indicator
- Missing evidence that would confirm or rule out each pattern
- A prioritized checklist for human investigators
Start with what you know
What you can enter
From input to source-linked brief
- 01Case intake
Provide the transaction data, incident description, and context you have.
- 02Typology analysis
Compare the facts against established fraud typologies and your framework if supplied.
- 03Red flag review
Tie each indicator to specific data points, with strength and missing evidence noted.
- 04Mapping report
Review matched patterns, red flags, and a prioritized check list for investigators.
Use cases
Quickly see which fraud patterns an incident resembles before assigning investigative effort.
Structure a first-pass typology view over transaction extracts and case notes.
Decide whether an alert warrants escalation, with the reasoning documented.
Give investigators a consistent typology-mapped starting record for the case file.
What this is not
4S8 works with public sources, your case material, and source-linked analysis to support human review — not to replace legal, compliance, or investigative judgment.
- Analytical pattern matching, not a fraud determination or accusation
- Not AML screening, a SAR decision, or regulatory reporting advice
- Works on the data you provide — no access to your transaction systems
- Typology matches indicate resemblance; alternative explanations are noted
- Absence of red flags is not clearance
- Human investigation required before any action against a person or entity
Frequently asked questions
Does it tell me whether fraud occurred?
No. It maps the facts you provide against established typologies and surfaces red flags with stated reasoning. Whether fraud occurred is a human determination, made with proper investigation.
Is this a compliance or regulatory decision tool?
No. It supports triage and analysis. Regulatory obligations — filings, reporting, escalation — remain decisions for your compliance function and counsel.
What data does it need?
Whatever you can provide: transaction extracts, incident descriptions, alerts, and context. It works entirely on supplied material and flags where the data is too thin to assess a pattern.
Can I run it on recurring incident batches?
Yes. It can run on demand for a single case or on a schedule against new incident batches, producing a mapping report for human triage each time.
Start with a source-linked brief
Start free — begin now and get a structured, reviewable artifact back.
Map Typologies