Merchant bank fraud collaboration: Bridging the gap between merchants and banks
Today we are talking about merchant bank fraud collaboration and why the gap between merchants and banks still creates real problems for fraud prevention, customer protection, and loss mitigation.
I sat down with Angela Diaz, a fraud and risk management expert with nearly two decades of experience across both the merchant and banking sides, to talk about what each side can see, what each side cannot see, and why that disconnect makes fraud harder to identify, classify, and resolve. This is one of those conversations that matters because a lot of fraud teams are working incredibly hard with only part of the picture.
And that is a problem.
At first glance, it can sound like merchants and banks are dealing with the same fraud events from different angles. And yes, sometimes they are. But when you look closer, the visibility gap is much bigger than that. Merchants often see device behavior, checkout details, and order context. Banks see account history, payment movement, claims behavior, and regulatory obligations. Neither side has the full story. And that matters a lot when the case involves first-party fraud management, dispute evidence and fraud claims, or the constant tension between protecting good customers and preventing abuse.
This episode also gets into something I think more teams need to talk about openly. Fraud analytics for operations are only useful if teams actually know what they are measuring. Angela makes a strong case for better fraud categorization best practices, stronger fraud reporting and analytics, and the very unglamorous but very necessary work of knowing your fraud numbers.
Because if you do not know your numbers, you do not know your problem.
And if you do not know your problem, it is very hard to build a strategy that holds up.
What you’ll hear in this episode:
- Why merchant bank fraud collaboration is still harder than it should be across payments and disputes
- How first-party fraud management gets complicated when merchants and issuers have different visibility and incentives
- What claims evidence requirements look like from the bank side and why that often frustrates merchants
- Why fraud analytics for operations and better fraud data sharing are essential for smarter decision-making
- How risk management in financial institutions differs from fraud operations and why that distinction matters
You should listen to this episode if you:
- Work in merchant fraud, issuer fraud, banking risk, or dispute operations and want better collaboration between merchants and banks
- Need a clearer view of merchant and bank fraud data gaps and how they affect daily decision-making
- Care about customer protection and loss mitigation without oversimplifying fraud claims
- Want stronger fraud reporting and analytics tied to operational efficiency in fraud teams
- Are trying to build a more cross-functional fraud strategy grounded in actionable data
If you liked this episode, be sure to subscribe and review the podcast on iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you listen to podcasts. It really helps with getting the word out.
Episode notes & key takeaways
Before we double click on the notes, I just want to say that my marketing team told me I need to structure these notes a certain way in order for people to find my podcast. The below is a bit of that.
Why merchant bank fraud collaboration is harder than it sounds
Let’s break this down.
Merchant bank fraud collaboration sounds obvious in theory. Same fraud event. Same customer. Same payment trail. So everyone should be aligned, right? Not exactly.
Because when you look at how merchants and banks actually operate, the visibility and incentives are very different. Merchants usually have stronger insight into the front end of the transaction. Device signals. Checkout behavior. Shipping patterns. Order anomalies. Banks, on the other hand, often have stronger visibility into account history, prior claims, payment behavior, and what happens after the transaction begins moving through the financial system.
That means both sides are looking at the same event through a different window.
And sometimes those windows do not overlap enough.
That is one of the biggest merchant and bank fraud data gaps Angela talks about in this episode. It is not just that the data lives in different places. It is that each side is forced to make decisions based on partial truth. Merchants may feel like the abuse is obvious. Issuers may need a different level of proof. And the result is frustration on both sides.
Here is where the collaboration gap usually shows up:
- Fraud visibility across payments is fragmented between the merchant experience and the issuer experience
- Merchant versus issuer fraud visibility creates different interpretations of the same event
- Collaboration between merchants and banks often breaks down when each side assumes the other can see more than it actually can
- Better fraud data sharing is hard to build when teams are working within different systems, incentives, and obligations
Why first-party fraud management is one of the hardest problems for both sides
Here’s what’s actually happening.
First-party fraud management sits right in the middle of the merchant-bank tension because it is one of the areas where evidence, intent, and accountability all get messy very quickly. A merchant may see behavior that strongly suggests the customer participated in the transaction. A bank may see a cardholder claim that triggers a different review path, different regulatory constraints, and different customer-protection expectations.
And that is where things get complicated fast.
Because first-party fraud is rarely neat. It does not always come with a clean confession, a perfect signal, or a single obvious piece of evidence. It comes with patterns. Contradictions. Context. Behavior that feels off. And a lot of gray space between “clear fraud” and “not enough to prove it.”
That matters.
Angela explains how claims evidence requirements can create real friction here. Banks often need a very specific level of support to deny a claim or classify a case a certain way. Merchants may feel like the broader pattern should be enough. But regulatory frameworks and internal standards do not always allow decisions based on instinct, even when that instinct is well informed.
- First-party fraud management is difficult because intent is often inferred rather than directly proven
- Claims evidence requirements can prevent banks from acting on suspicion alone
- Dispute evidence and fraud claims are often evaluated under standards merchants do not fully see
- Customer protection and loss mitigation can come into tension when fraud patterns are real but documentation is thin
Why knowing your fraud numbers changes everything
One of the best parts of this conversation is how clearly Angela talks about fraud analytics for operations. Because this is not just about dashboards. It is about whether teams actually understand what is happening in their environment.
And honestly, a lot of teams do not. Not fully.
They may have data. They may have reports. They may have a few top-line numbers everyone repeats in leadership meetings. But that is not the same thing as having actionable fraud data for teams. If you cannot categorize fraud well, segment the right patterns, and explain what is driving loss, workload, or false positives, then your strategy is probably running on assumptions more than evidence.
That usually does not end well.
Angela makes the point that teams need to know their numbers. Not in a vague way. In a real way. How much fraud is actually first-party? How much time is being spent on the wrong queues? What claim categories are growing? What patterns are driving operational inefficiency in fraud teams? Those are the kinds of questions that move strategy forward.
- Fraud analytics for operations should be tied to decisions, not just reporting
- Know your fraud numbers means understanding volume, pattern, cause, and operational impact
- Actionable fraud data for teams helps improve staffing, prioritization, and escalation
- Fraud categorization best practices make it easier to see which problems are growing and which controls are actually working
How risk management in financial institutions differs from fraud operations
This is another part of the conversation that really matters. Risk management in financial institutions is not the same thing as fraud operations, even when the two functions are closely connected.
Fraud operations are often focused on live cases, investigations, claims, response timelines, and customer-facing outcomes. Risk management tends to sit at a different altitude. More oversight. More trend analysis. More framework and control assessment. More looking across the organization instead of just at the queue in front of you.
Neither one is better. They are different.
And if teams do not understand that difference, they can end up talking past each other.
Angela’s background across both sides gives her a useful perspective here. She understands what it means to work the fraud problem directly, and she also understands what changes when the job becomes more about oversight, structure, and strategic direction. That is important for leaders building cross-functional fraud strategy because not every fraud problem gets solved in the same place.
- Risk management in financial institutions focuses more on oversight and control design than case-level action
- Bank fraud operations insights are often strongest at the case and customer interaction level
- Cross-functional fraud strategy works better when teams understand how risk and operations play different roles
- Financial crime collaboration improves when functions stop assuming everyone is solving the same problem the same way
Why better collaboration starts with better translation
At the center of this episode is a simple point. Merchant bank fraud collaboration does not improve just because everyone agrees fraud is bad. It improves when teams get better at translating what they know into something the other side can use.
That means clearer evidence. Better categorization. Stronger communication. More realistic expectations. And more respect for the fact that the other side may be working under real constraints you do not have.
Right.
That does not eliminate the tension. But it does make the collaboration more useful.
This episode is a good reminder that fraud work is full of partial truth. Merchants know things banks do not. Banks know things merchants do not. The challenge is not deciding who is right more often. It is figuring out how those partial truths can be combined into better decisions, better strategy, and fewer avoidable losses.
And that is the part worth paying attention to.
- Merchant bank fraud collaboration gets stronger when teams translate their data into usable context
- Better fraud data sharing requires more than sending reports across a wall
- Fraud reporting and analytics should support communication, not just measurement
- The strongest fraud teams build strategy around what they know and what they still need to learn
The big takeaway from this episode is pretty straightforward. Merchant bank fraud collaboration is not optional anymore if teams want to get better at first-party fraud management, claims handling, and smarter fraud strategy. Merchants and banks each hold part of the truth. The more effectively they share context, evidence, and insights, the better chance they have of making decisions that actually reflect what is happening.
