botminds.aiRequest a demo
SystemPayment Disputes & Fraud Claims

First-Party Fraud Detection

First-party fraud detection that sets each thing the customer said beside the bank's own record, so a denial rests on evidence and uncertain claims are paid

False claims denied on the evidence, and no genuine victim denied.

See the demoBook a demo
See one case, screen by screen ↓
demoDay 6of 10business days on the Regulation E clock when Trevor Haldane's claim was decided by Nadia Okafor and checked by Glen Whitaker
demo38similar claimscompared before the denial went to a person: 31 denied, and each of the 7 paid had a new device or a reported impostor contact
target0denialsresting on a reason the rules do not allow, such as earlier claims alone, late reporting or negligence
typical$11billionin charges consumers disputed in 2024, up 40% since 2019
In short

What is First-Party Fraud Detection?

First-Party Fraud Detection is software for dispute investigators who flag likely false Reg E claims with evidence, to deny fairly on record. Seven agents set each thing the customer said beside the bank's own record that answers it, look first for what would make the claim genuine, and review every proposed denial for fairness. An investigator decides, a supervisor checks every denial, and uncertain claims are paid.

AI use cases in banking: a buyer's guide to agentic AI for bank and credit union operations →

Updated

The problem

Why first-party fraud detection is hard on a Reg E clock

First-party fraud detection starts from an awkward fact: a growing share of Reg E claims dispute payments the customer made, or knows who made. Regulation E does not let a bank refuse a claim on suspicion. It must review its own records at a minimum, decide within 10 business days or credit provisionally, and, when it finds no error, explain its findings in writing and offer the documents it relied on. It also rules out the easy reasons: CFPB examiners have cited institutions for denying claims solely because the consumer had dealt with the merchant before, negligence does not raise a customer's liability, and a transfer made by someone who tricked the customer into sharing a code is unauthorized.

The records that settle a claim sit apart: devices and sign-ins in the digital banking console, payments in the core and the P2P network portal, earlier claims in case management and, for a sponsor bank's fintech partner customers, data the partner sends by email. Suspicion comes from a rule or the investigator's memory, notes say “customer has filed before; device matches”, and a denial letter is a template with one sentence of findings. False claims are paid and written off, genuine victims are sometimes denied on history or late reporting, and nobody compares a denial with similar claims until Compliance samples a month. First-Party Fraud Detection puts seven agents in front of that work: they set each statement beside the record that answers it, look first for what would make the claim genuine, and review every proposed denial for fairness before an investigator decides and a supervisor checks.

estimated4systemshold the records that settle one claim: the digital banking console, the core, the P2P network portal and case management, plus a partner's data by email
estimated~8%of about 1,100 Reg E claims a month flagged as likely first-party at a $3.4 billion community bank and its two fintech partners (fictional)
typical40%rise in the charges consumers disputed, from 2019 to 2024
Where an investigator's minutes on one flagged claim goestimated
By hand65 minutes
With the solution10 minutes
  • Splitting the app form and the call into what the customer says, and setting the clock5 → 1 min
  • Reading devices, sign-ins and network history in the digital banking console15 → 2 min
  • Pulling card and P2P payment history from the core and the network portal10 → 1 min
  • Finding earlier claims and links between the customer and the recipient10 → 1 min
  • Requesting a fintech partner customer's device data by email10 → 1 min
  • Writing the decision and a letter that lists each fact15 → 4 min

Estimated split of one flagged Reg E claim's investigator minutes, by hand and with the agents. Our estimate, kept modest; the investigator still reads every pair and decides.

How it works

How a flagged claim is decided

Seven agents set each claim against the bank's records and review every denial for fairness; two people sign.

What comes in
The customer's words and the bank's records6 statements · app form, call, device, sign-ins, P2P history
Agents at work
Intake agentstatements, the clock
Then
Evidence agentstatement against record
History agentcontext, links
Then
Fairness agentstruck reasons, similar claims
Partner data agentlate data never denies
Then
Letter agenteach fact, right to documents
Account review agentafter a checked denial
A person decides
Dispute Investigator and Disputes Supervisordecide, then check as the second person
What comes out
Denied on the evidence
Uncertain claims paid
A letter with each fact
One case, step by step

One first-party fraud claim, from the app form to the second signature

On Tuesday, October 13, 2026, Trevor Haldane, a Tessaly Community Bank customer since 2019, disputed a $740.00 P2P payment to Kyle Ostrander in the Tessaly app: “I never sent this payment.” It was his fourth claim in six months. Here is claim RC-26-10482 on Wednesday, October 21, business day 6 of 10, screen by screen in the working solution.

  1. 01Morning

    The sharpest contradiction in each claim

    Nadia Okafor · Dispute Investigator

    Nadia has 11 flagged claims and 3 are ready to decide. Each row shows one statement against one record and the agents' proposal: Trevor's claim, deny with evidence at 0.95; Mei-Lin Park's, pay, evidence mixed at 0.58; Kiara Holt's, pay, because she reported an impostor call. The agents' overnight notes read as a short conversation, each with an action.

    2:18 a.m. · Fairness agent returned a proposed denial (RC-26-10455): it leaned on earlier claims

  2. 02The queue

    Every flagged claim, its clock and its proposal

    Nadia Okafor · Dispute Investigator

    34 of 638 open Reg E claims at Tessaly and its fintech partners Tallowbird and Saltmeadow are flagged as likely first-party. Each row shows the program, the transfer, a ten-day clock bar, the sharpest contradiction and the proposal. Flagged claims are decided by business day 8; at day 7 they escalate to the Disputes Supervisor and at day 9 to the department head.

  3. 03Business day 6 of 10

    What he said, beside what the records show

    Evidence agent

    Trevor's app form and his call are split into six statements, each paired with the record that answers it. “I never sent this payment” sits beside the iPhone registered to his digital banking since September 14, 2024, the device behind 96% of his sign-ins. “Someone must have gotten into my account” sits beside a Face ID sign-in at 7:40 p.m., with no password reset, new device or failed sign-in in the 90 days before.

    Evidence agent v3.2 · confidence 0.95 · decide by Tuesday, October 27

  4. 04Pair by pair

    Bend, or home in Keizer

    Evidence agent

    “I was at my sister's in Bend all weekend” sits beside his home network in Keizer and his debit card read chip and PIN at Riverbend Market, Keizer, on Saturday at 11:02 a.m. “I don't know who this person is” sits beside 14 earlier payments to Kyle Ostrander, memo “rent split”, and, rated moderate, a recipient phone that was his alternate contact until June 2, 2026. Each pair is labeled Strong, Moderate or Context only, opens its source passage, and has Ask and Set aside buttons.

  5. 05Before any denial

    The customer's side first

    Evidence agent

    Before proposing a denial, the agent looked for what would make the claim genuine: a new or changed device, a password or PIN reset, takeover signs, a scam call or text, a SIM or carrier change, a phone reported lost. It found none, and says what it cannot rule out. The proposal is one line: “Deny with evidence: the payment was authorized. The customer may ask for the documents.”

    Face ID cannot rule out someone in his household with his phone. He said no one else uses it.

  6. 06Context, not a reason

    Four claims in six months, kept as context

    History agent

    The History agent lays out Trevor's claims since May: $212.40 card online, paid; $389.00 P2P to the same recipient, paid; $95.00 ACH, genuine, because he had canceled in writing on July 30. It found no shared device, address or account across the three ledgers. History stays on this screen as context and for a possible referral, never as the reason for a denial.

  7. 07Before Nadia decides

    Earlier claims struck, 38 similar claims compared

    Fairness agent

    The Fairness agent sets Trevor's earlier claims aside as a reason and keeps them out of the letter. It compares 38 similar P2P claims since July, sent from the customer's registered device to a recipient paid 5 or more times before: 31 were denied and 7 paid, and each paid one had a new device added days before or a reported impostor call or text. Trevor's claim has neither, so a denial treats him like the 31.

  8. 089:12 a.m.

    Deny with evidence, and a letter that lists each fact

    Nadia Okafor · Dispute Investigator

    Nadia denies with evidence, reason code “Authorized by the customer: own device and known recipient”. The Letter agent drafts DN-2 v3: no error occurred, four facts in plain words, and his right to ask for the documents relied on. All 8 required elements are checked before anyone signs, including no accusation and no mention of earlier claims or any referral.

  9. 099:31 a.m.

    The second person checks

    Glen Whitaker · Disputes Supervisor

    Glen reads the denial beside its pairs, the Fairness agent's note, the reason code and the letter, and approves. Nothing posts or reverses, because no provisional credit was made. The decision is recorded, the letter released and case management updated on business day 6; on his desk, nobody can check their own work.

  10. 10In the Tessaly app

    Plain words for the customer, nothing else

    Trevor Haldane · customer

    Trevor's app says “We found this payment was made with your authorization”, lists the four facts, and offers “Ask for the documents” and “Tell us something new”. The Account review agent proposes a referral to the BSA Officer, restricted, and a 180-day senior review of new claims; no account closure, because policy needs two confirmed claims. Neither the referral nor the words fraud or flag ever reach his screen.

Who it’s for

Built for everyone who decides a first-party fraud claim.

The same flagged claim, seen by the people who prepare it, check it, test it, supply its data and decide what follows: their day before, and now.

NO
Nadia OkaforDispute investigator · about 11 flagged claims at a time among the bank's 638 open Reg E claims
Dispute Investigator
Before
Opens case management, the core, the digital banking console and the P2P network portal for each claim, and writes free-text notes such as “customer has filed before; device matches”.
Now
Opens each flagged claim with the customer's statements already paired with the records that answer them, asks about any pair, sets one aside with a reason, and decides with a reason code.
GW
Glen WhitakerSecond person on every denial, payment after review and account action
Disputes Supervisor
Before
Approves a denial if it reads well; the letter is a template with a sentence of findings, and the evidence relied on is often not listed.
Now
Checks each denial beside its pairs, the Fairness agent's note, the reason code and the letter, approves or returns it with a reason, and is never offered his own work.
RV
Rosalind VanceOwns Reg E and UDAAP · approves settings · signs the monthly consistency watch
Compliance Officer
Before
Tests whether similar claims were treated alike only when she samples a month by hand.
Now
Sees denial rates by program and transfer type each month, the reasons struck before anyone saw them and the overrides by reason code, and signs the review. In September Saltmeadow stood out at 62%.
EN
Eli NavarroHolds Tallowbird and Saltmeadow to their program agreements
Fintech Partner Risk Manager
Before
Requests a partner customer's device data by email while the bank's Reg E clock keeps running.
Now
Sees each partner's data timeliness and the claims a late file holds up, then retries the feed, sends a reminder or escalates under §7.3 of the program agreement.
ML
Marguerite LacroixDecides referrals for suspicious activity, restricted to BSA
BSA Officer
Before
Hears about a confirmed false claim by email, while a customer-facing status sometimes says “under fraud review”.
Now
Receives each referral restricted to BSA, with the claims and amounts behind it: for Trevor, two claims to one related recipient, $1,129.00, below the $5,000 threshold, so filing is her decision.
Built on the engine

7 agents. Each with one job, and hard limits.

Seven agents set each claim against the bank's records and review every denial for fairness; two people sign.

Intake agent

Reads the app form, the call transcript or the partner ticket, splits it into numbered statements with their times, classifies the transfer and sets the Reg E clock.

  • Never rejects a claim
  • Never asks for a police report
Evidence agent

Lines up each statement against device, sign-in, network, card and P2P records, labels its strength, and first searches for anything that would make the claim genuine.

  • Read-only; proposes, never decides
  • Below 0.75 confidence it proposes payment
  • States what a record cannot rule out, such as a household member with the phone
History agent

Finds earlier claims and links between the customer and the recipient, such as payments, contact numbers and devices, across the bank's own customers and its fintech partners' ledgers.

  • History is context and for referral; it is never offered as a reason for a denial
Fairness agent

Reviews every proposed denial before a person does: strikes reasons the rules do not allow, compares the claim with similar ones and checks the letter's wording. Each month it measures denial rates by program, channel and transfer type.

  • Can return a denial or require payment when uncertain; cannot deny
Letter agent

Drafts the result or payment notice from approved templates, listing each fact relied on in plain words and the customer's right to the documents.

  • Never sends
  • Never mentions earlier claims, referrals or the word fraud
Partner data agent

Requests and tracks fintech partners' device, session and ledger data under each program agreement, and flags late feeds with the claims they hold up.

  • Never decides a partner customer's claim
  • Late data never delays the clock: with no data by business day 8, provisional credit is proposed
Account review agent

After a checked denial, proposes what follows under policy FP-2 §5: a BSA referral, an account review or recovery, each to the person who decides it.

  • Proposals only
  • Referrals are restricted to the BSA Officer
Dispute Investigator and Disputes Supervisor

Decide and check. The agents propose; a named person decides.

Ask in plain words

Ask about any claim, record, pair or rule

Ask in plain words, or say what to prepare. Every answer cites the record it came from, then opens the screen it is about.

Why is Trevor's claim flagged?

Because four things he said do not match Tessaly's own records. He says he never sent it; it was sent from his iPhone of two years after a Face ID sign-in. He says he was in Bend; it came from his home network in Keizer and his card was used there the next morning. He says he does not know the recipient; he has paid him 14 times. I found nothing that would make it genuine. His earlier claims are not part of the reason.

Did we treat similar claims the same way?

Yes. The Fairness agent matched 38 P2P claims since July: own device, a recipient paid 5 or more times, no device change, no scam contact. 31 were denied and 7 paid; each of the 7 had a new device in the week before or a reported impostor contact. Neither is in Trevor's claim, so a denial treats him like the 31.

Why was Brianna Cole's denial returned?

The draft leaned on her two earlier claims, which policy FP-2 never allows as a reason. Without them there is no cancellation and no authorization yet: confidence 0.71, under the 0.75 floor, so the agents propose payment.

What will Trevor never see?

Any referral, or that one exists; the words fraud or flag; the strength labels and the agents' confidence; his earlier claims as a reason; other customers' claims; and any full account, card or device number. He sees the decision, four facts and his right to the documents.

Every screen

The working solution, as it ships.

13 screens from the working solution, on its sample data. Pick one to see it large.

What the customer said, beside what the bank's records showClaim RC-26-10482 at Tessaly Community Bank: Trevor Haldane disputes a $740.00 P2P payment to Kyle Ostrander, his fourth claim in six months, on business day 6 of 10 (decide by Tuesday, October 27). Six statements from his app form and his call are each paired with the record that answers it: “I never sent this payment” beside the iPhone registered to him since September 14, 2024; “Someone must have gotten into my account” beside a Face ID sign-in at 7:40 p.m. with no reset, new device or failed sign-in in 90 days; “I was at my sister's in Bend all weekend” beside his home network in Keizer and a chip-and-PIN purchase there; “I don't know who this person is” beside 14 earlier payments memo “rent split”.
The investigator's morning: the sharpest contradiction in each claimNadia Okafor, Dispute Investigator: 11 flagged claims are hers and 3 are ready to decide. Each row shows one statement against one record and the agents' proposal: RC-26-10482 deny with evidence at 0.95; RC-26-10391 Mei-Lin Park pay, evidence mixed at 0.58; RC-26-10473 Kiara Holt pay, an impostor-induced transfer; RC-26-10455 Brianna Cole, a denial returned by the Fairness agent. A line of numbers above: 638 open Reg E claims, 34 flagged, 9 to decide by business day 8, 6 with a second person, 3 waiting on partner data.
Every flagged claim, its clock and its proposal34 of 638 open Reg E claims at Tessaly and its fintech partners Tallowbird and Saltmeadow are flagged as likely first-party, sorted by business day. Each row shows the program, transfer, amount, a ten-day clock bar, the sharpest contradiction, the proposal and the investigator; filters by proposal (deny 12, pay 9, gathering evidence 7, waiting on partner data 3, with the checker 3), program and investigator.
The customer's side first, then the proposal and a fairness reviewBefore proposing a denial, the Evidence agent looked for what would make Trevor's claim genuine and found none: no new device in 2026, no password or PIN reset, no takeover signs, no scam contact reported, no SIM change, no lost phone. One limit is stated: Face ID cannot rule out a household member. The proposal in one line: “Deny with evidence: the payment was authorized. The customer may ask for the documents.”
Thirty-eight similar claims, and what made the paid ones differentThe Fairness agent's comparison for RC-26-10482: P2P claims sent from the customer's registered device to a recipient paid 5 or more times before, July 1 to October 20. 31 were denied ($19,640.00) and 7 paid, each paid one with a new device added days before or a reported impostor call or text.
Four claims in six months, one recipient twice, kept as contextThe History agent's view of Trevor Haldane from March 2025 to October 2026: four Reg E claims on one lane, 16 payments to Kyle Ostrander on another, and the alternate contact phone added March 2, 2025 and removed June 2, 2026. Earlier claims: $212.40 card online (paid), $389.00 P2P to the same recipient (paid, final August 21), $95.00 ACH (genuine: canceled in writing July 30).
A result letter that lists every fact and the right to documentsLetter DN-2 v3 to Trevor Haldane: no error occurred, the payment was made with his authorization, followed by four facts in plain words (his registered iPhone and Face ID, no reset or new device in 90 days, his home internet connection and a chip-and-PIN purchase in Keizer, 14 earlier payments with the note “rent split”) and his right to ask for the documents relied on.
The Disputes Supervisor checks the denial as the second personGlen Whitaker's desk: RC-26-10482, deny with evidence, $740.00, prepared by Nadia Okafor, approved. Beside it the pairs, the Fairness agent's note, the reason code, the letter and the money line: nothing posts or reverses. The run shows the decision recorded, letter DN-2 v3 released, case management updated on business day 6.
What the customer sees in the app, and what he never seesTrevor's Tessaly app after the decision of October 21: “We found this payment was made with your authorization”, the four facts, “Ask for the documents” and “Tell us something new”. Beside it, what is locked out of every customer view: any referral or that one exists, the words fraud or flag, the strength labels and agent confidence, his earlier claims as a reason, other customers' claims and full account numbers.
What follows a checked denial, each to the person who decidesThe Account review agent's proposals under policy FP-2 §5: a referral to the BSA Officer, restricted, for two claims to one related recipient ($1,129.00 claimed, below the $5,000 threshold, so filing is her decision); a 180-day senior review of new claims, each still investigated on its own records; no account closure, because two confirmed claims are needed; nothing to recover; only the result letter reaches the customer.
A monthly check that similar claims were treated alikeThe Fairness agent's September consistency watch, signed by Rosalind Vance, Compliance Officer: 91 flagged claims decided, 45% denied. Denied of flagged by program: Tessaly 43%, Tallowbird 41%, Saltmeadow 62% (the outlier); by transfer type within 10 points. The agent re-read Saltmeadow's 8 denials: 5 stand, 2 records corrected, 1 ($164.00) reopened for payment.
Fintech partner customers' claims, held to the program agreementEli Navarro's partner view: Saltmeadow's device and session file is 26 hours late, with three claims waiting (RC-26-10417 on business day 7). Retry the feed, send a reminder or escalate under §7.3; with no data by business day 8 the agents propose provisional credit, and a claim is never denied for missing partner data.
Every action by people and agents, ready for the FDIC and the CFPBThe audit trail with who, what, when, why and evidence: the customer notice service delivering the letter, Glen Whitaker's check, Nadia Okafor's decision with its reason code, the Fairness, History and Evidence agents' overnight work, and the intake of October 13. Filters for people, agents and decisions; Export CSV and Build an examiner pack.
Governance

First-party fraud detection that stays fair, checked and on the record.

Seven roles, separated by dutyDispute Investigators prepare; the Disputes Supervisor checks denials, payments after review and account actions; the Compliance Officer approves settings and signs the fairness review; the Fintech Partner Risk Manager handles partner data and notices; the BSA Officer sees referrals; the Internal Auditor reads and exports with names masked; the Administrator proposes settings. A person who prepares a decision can never check it.
Two people on every decision that mattersA denial, a payment after review, an account action, a partner notice and a settings change each need a maker and a different checker. The agents never decide, post, debit, send or refer.
Reasons the rules do not allow are struck firstPolicy FP-2 §2 lists what is never a reason for a denial: earlier claims alone, reporting time within the rule, negligence or a shared PIN, prior dealings with the recipient alone, a missing police report. The Fairness agent returns any proposal that leans on one, and claims under 0.75 confidence are proposed for payment.
Versioned agents, cited statements, counted overridesEvery pair and agent statement opens its source passage. Prompts and models are versioned, a new version runs on last month's claims before it goes live, and threshold changes need the Compliance Officer's approval. When a person overrides an agent, the reason code is counted in the monthly review.
No tipping off, access by needReferrals are restricted to BSA and never appear on a customer view, letter or export, under 31 CFR 1020.320(e). Customer wording never says fraud, flag or first-party. Account, card and device numbers show only their last four, and customer names are masked for the Internal Auditor.
An audit trail and examiner packsEvery action by people and agents is recorded with who, what, when, why and the evidence. Filter it, export CSV, or build a sealed pack for FDIC or CFPB examiners, state examiners or internal audit. Records are kept 5 years.
Configuration

Your claims policy, as settings with versions

Thresholds, the never-a-reason list, clocks and privacy are settings. The Administrator proposes a change and the Compliance Officer approves it before it is a new version; locked items change only that way.

SettingDefaultChoose from
Flag a claim as likely first-party at0.80Evidence agent confidence; changed by a proposal the Compliance Officer approves
Propose a denial only at or above0.90Below it, every source must be opened
Confidence floor: pay below0.75Uncertain claims are paid, never denied; version 8 proposes 0.78
Never a reason for a denial (policy FP-2 §2)5 reasons, lockedEarlier claims alone; reporting time within the rule; negligence or a shared PIN; prior dealings with the recipient alone (added in version 7); a missing police report
Decide flagged claims by business day8 of 10Escalate to the Disputes Supervisor at day 7 and the department head at day 9; second-person check within 4 business hours
Partner data missing by business day 8Provisional credit proposedLocked: a claim is never denied for missing partner data
Override reason codes5 codesNew information, household member, shared network, record not relied on, other with a note
Keep decision records5 yearsThe BSA five-year rule; Regulation E requires at least two
Connections

Works with the systems a disputes team already reads

Core banking systemaccounts, the ledger and customer record changes
Digital bankingthe device registry, sign-in sessions and network history
P2P network gatewaypayments and recipient enrollment
Card processorcard authorizations
Fintech partner ledgers and feedspartner customers' device, session and ledger data, under each program agreement
Case managementclaims, decisions and earlier claims; letters go out through the customer notice service after the check
What it changes

The difference, in numbers.

Every figure is labelled: a target the solution is built to, an estimate, a typical published result, or a proven one.

target
0
denials resting on a reason the rules do not allow: earlier claims alone, late reporting or negligence are struck first
Every denial reviewed
before a person sees it
estimated
~40a month
false claims decided on the evidence, about $24,000 not written off at a $3.4 billion bank
Paid by defaultunclear claims
With agents41 denied on evidence
target
100%
of denials checked by a second person, with each fact and the right to documents in the letter

“demo” = seen in the working solution, on its sample data · “target” = the design goal, to be measured in the live solution · “estimated” = our estimate · “typical” = published figures (ICBA, citing the Wall Street Journal, November 2025: consumers disputed $11 billion in charges in 2024, up 40% since 2019). Rules named: Regulation E, 12 CFR 1005.2(m), 1005.6, 1005.11 and 1005.13; CFPB Electronic Fund Transfers FAQs (December 13, 2021); 12 U.S.C. 5531 and 5536 (UDAAP); 31 CFR 1010.430 and 1020.320(e). Tessaly Community Bank, its fintech partners Tallowbird and Saltmeadow, and the people, devices, accounts and numbers named on this page are fictional: characters and sample data in the working solution.

Questions

What dispute teams ask about first-party fraud detection.

What is First-Party Fraud Detection?

First-Party Fraud Detection is software for dispute investigators who flag likely false Reg E claims with evidence, to deny fairly on record. Seven agents set each thing the customer said beside the bank's own record that answers it, look first for what would make the claim genuine, and review every proposed denial for fairness. An investigator decides, a supervisor checks every denial, and uncertain claims are paid.

What is first-party fraud in banking?

First-party fraud is when a customer disputes a payment he made himself, or knows who made, and claims it was unauthorized. Under Regulation E, a transfer is unauthorized when someone other than the customer starts it without actual authority, and not when a person the customer gave the access device to makes it. Most claims are genuine and are paid; a growing share are not.

What is the difference between first-party and third-party fraud?

In first-party fraud the customer, or someone he knows, made the payment he disputes. In third-party fraud someone else made it: a stolen phone, an account takeover, or an impostor who tricked the customer into sharing a code, which the CFPB's Electronic Fund Transfers FAQs treat as unauthorized. That is why the Evidence agent looks first for a new device, a reset, takeover signs, a scam contact, a SIM change or a lost phone before any denial is proposed.

What are the Reg E claims time frame and error resolution requirements?

Under 12 CFR 1005.11 a bank has 10 business days to investigate or credit provisionally, and 45 days to finish, 90 for point-of-sale, foreign and new-account transfers. It must review its own records at a minimum, and when it finds no error it must explain its findings in writing and tell the customer he may ask for the documents relied on. In the working solution flagged claims are decided by business day 8, and the result letter lists each fact and that right.

Does it deny a claim because of the customer's earlier claims?

No. Earlier claims alone, late reporting, negligence, prior dealings with the recipient alone and a missing police report are never a reason for a denial. The Fairness agent strikes them before a person sees the proposal and returns any denial that leans on one, as it did with a denial that rested on a customer's two earlier claims. Earlier claims stay on the screen as context only.

Does it work for a sponsor bank's fintech partner programs?

Yes. The History agent reads the partners' ledgers, and the Partner data agent requests and tracks each partner's device and session data under its program agreement, with a scorecard for each partner. Late data never runs down the clock: with no data by business day 8, the agents propose provisional credit, and a claim is never denied for missing partner data.

Do people stay in control of each decision?

Yes. The agents propose, explain and cite; they never decide, post, debit, send or refer. The investigator can ask about any pair, set one aside with a reason and choose to deny with evidence, pay the claim or ask the customer. A Disputes Supervisor who did not prepare the decision checks every denial, payment after review and account action.

How does First-Party Fraud Detection go live?

The Agentic Solution Engine builds and deploys it from your requirements and documents, such as your claims policy, letter templates and a sample of past claims, and it goes live once every quality gate has passed. We will walk you through it on your own claims first.

Payment Disputes & Fraud Claims

More in this division.

All 7 solutions →
Reg E Dispute Management

Every claim on its legal clock, provisional credit by day 3, every letter checked.

1-min demoP2P Fraud Claims

Each payment placed on its side of the line, with the record that puts it there.

1-min demoCheck Fraud Claims

Recredit the next day, and recover the loss from the bank that took the deposit.

1-min demo

See it on
your Reg E claims.

We'll run First-Party Fraud Detection on a sample of your own past flagged Reg E claims.

Book a demoBrowse solutions