Fraud-Driven Deposit Account Replacement
When fraud compromises a deposit account, replacing it touches identity verification, payment re-routing, card reissuance, and member communication — all under time pressure.
The failure pattern
The fraud event triggers account closure, but the replacement process is scattered across teams: one group opens the new account, another re-routes ACH and direct deposits, another reissues cards, and another handles member communication. Without a single workflow owner, items fall through — recurring payments fail, the member calls multiple times, and re-verification steps get skipped or duplicated.
Regulatory context
BSA/AML (new-account CIP obligations apply even for existing members in some interpretations), Reg E (error resolution and provisional crediting on the compromised account), UDAAP (the member experience during replacement must not be unfair or deceptive). Verify locally.
The target state
A single coordinated workflow from fraud confirmation to fully operational replacement account: CIP re-verification (where required) completed once, all recurring payment routes transferred, cards reissued, and member notified — with each step tracked and nothing dependent on a person remembering to hand off.
Our approach
The Prove It Sprint maps every step from fraud detection to replacement-account operational status, identifies the handoff gaps where items drop, and defines the build boundary. The automation handles the mechanical transfer steps; human judgment is preserved for fraud determination and member communication.
What steps are involved in replacing a fraud-compromised account?
Account closure, new account opening (with CIP re-verification where required), ACH/direct deposit re-routing, card reissuance, recurring payment transfer, member communication, and Reg E error resolution on the original account.
Why does fraud-driven account replacement take so long?
Because the process is typically split across multiple teams (fraud, operations, cards, member services) with no single workflow owner. Handoffs between teams create gaps where steps are skipped, duplicated, or delayed.
Can account replacement after fraud be automated?
The mechanical steps — payment re-routing, card reissuance triggers, member notifications — are strong automation candidates. Fraud determination and sensitive member communication should remain with humans. A build boundary makes this separation explicit.
Verify locally. This page characterizes the workflow at framework level. Specific regulatory thresholds, timing windows, and requirements should be verified by your compliance team against current guidance.
General operational information, not legal or compliance advice. Verify locally.
Get a fit read on this workflow.
Tell us about your version of this workflow and we’ll give you an honest read on whether it’s ours to take.
