Dive into the world of fraud with the "What the Fraud?" podcast! đ Todayâs guest is Claire Maillet, an award-winning fraud expert, PhD researcher, and advocate for disability and mental health awareness. Tom and Claire explore how fraud drives digital-age discrimination and discuss what stakeholders can do to combat it.
TOM TARANIUK: Hello and welcome to “What The Fraud?”, a podcast by Sumsub where digital fraudsters meet their match. I’m Thomas Taraniuk, currently responsible for some of our very exciting partnerships here at Sumsub, the global digital verification platform, helping to verify users, businesses and, of course, transactions as well. Fraud might seem like a victimless crime or an isolated issue, but when we take a closer look, it often acts as a powerful engine for bias, disproportionately targeting marginalized communities and fueling inequality.
In this episode today, we’re looking at how fraud fuels discrimination in the digital age and what actions stakeholders can take to address the issueâan issue that runs deeper than most of us imagine.
Today’s guest is Clare Maillet, an award winning leader in financial crime prevention, counter fraud expert, PhD researcher and a passionate advocate for disability and mental health awareness as well. When Clare isn’t driving transformative change by leading technical teams and shaping fraud-related products across Europe, she takes the stage internationally as a keynote speaker and podcast host. Clare’s efforts in bringing fraud awareness to the forefront, as well as exploring mental wellbeing, is truly inspiring. So, Clare, welcome. How are you doing today?
CLAIRE MAILLET: I’m very well, thank you. That introduction was incredibly kind. Thank you very much. Pleased to hear it.
TOM TARANIUK: Clare, thank you so much for joining us on “What The Fraud?” I’m really looking forward to our conversation here today.
Clare, I wanted to start by learning more about your work in spreading awareness of fraud, controls and speech impedimentsâa topic which we haven’t touched on here at “What The Fraud?” before, and one that’s also incredibly important to highlight.
So even in early 2024 the UK government introduced a Disability Action Plan aiming to make the UK the most accessible place in the world. However, the plan did not mention invisible disabilities, only physical and visible ones. And I understand that you help companies, Clare, reevaluate their processes and adapt their policies accordingly.
CLAIRE MAILLET: Yes. That’s right. And it’s a subject that I am obviously very passionate about. It encompasses my two key sort of loves, I guess, with regards to counter fraud and also stammering. As you’ll notice that I do have a stammer. I’ve had one for 28 years. Sometimes I can go for a whole day without stammering, and a few days I can’t say a single thing.
So with regards to the work that I do, I advise companies and also universities on how they can best support their colleagues, staff, students who stammer. And it only really came to me in the summer that I can actually combine these two into one presentation that I’ve just started and delivering. It’s looking at how a customer with a speech impediment of some kind might be unfairly or unknowingly penalized when it comes to counter fraud controls, both from the onboarding perspective, but also from the transaction monitoring perspective as well. It’s one of those things where people don’t realize they need to know about it until after they’ve heard it, and they go, ‘Oh my God, you know, now it’s so obvious that the way that we do things inside our organization could be penalizing people unfairly’.
TOM TARANIUK: Absolutely. It’s an important conversation to have. So, Clare, could you share some of the valuable insights you’ve learned since starting this conversation?
CLAIRE MAILLET: I think for me, as I said, it’s something that people don’t feel like they need to know. It’s not that important. It doesn’t really impact that many people. And then when I say on the whole it’s around 3% of adults in the UK stammer. So if you think about a company that has 50 million customers, they’re going to have a lot of customers who stammer. Now whether that’s knowingly or not knowingly, some people who stammer don’t want to disclose it. So that sort of adds another layer of complexity with regards to organizations as well. And I think that from a transaction monitoring perspective, there is a real risk of people with invisible disabilities: not just stammering, but invisible disabilities are being unfairly debunked. And obviously, earlier in 2024 it became a key talking point. From a disability perspective, I think it’s discriminatory. It goes against the Equality Act 2010, as well as Consumer Duty.
For example, the questions that people may ask during the identity verification process on the phone: can you confirm your first name, surname, date of birth? These are all things that if people who stammer don’t want to reveal that they stammer, they will substitute words. For example, if I wanted to order a coffee in a coffee shop, if I want to hide my stammer, I might end up ordering something completely different. If I think that I’m going to stammer on coffee medium skimmed milk, those sorts of things. I might then decide to substitute words and actually order something that I don’t like at all, but all for saving face to be able to hide my stammer. And that also comes to when you have to say your name in certain coffee shops, because they don’t ask for IDâthank goodnessâotherwise I’d be completely screwed. But I don’t have to say my actual name. I can say any name that I like, whereas for information that you can’t change.
So your personal details for example, that makes IDV a real problem for some people, and especially because some first line of defense teams have been trained to think that if someone can’t answer questions straight away, then they’re suspicious, whereas actually it’s a lack of understanding about that’s just how some people speak.
TOM TARANIUK: But how does digital discrimination influence who becomes the end victim of this type of fraud?
CLAIRE MAILLET: I think with regards to who becomes the victim, I mean, it’s difficult to say. Definitely, the individual with the disability is going to be left out, but also it leaves the organization in a vulnerable position as well, because anyone has the right to go to the Financial Ombudsman to complain. And whether or not, that company is going to win or lose the case, they will be charged a fee of 750 pounds.
So actually everyone loses out to an extent. But I think that people with invisible disabilities may not necessarily know that they can do that, because stammering is considered a disability by some, but not by others. And that’s because of the definition of the words and disability. And by law, it impacts different people in different ways, and therefore not everyone considers their stammer to be a disability. But in answer to your question, everybody loses out. But I don’t think people realize that.
TOM TARANIUK: Got you. I mean, people need to access not only physical services, but of course, digital services, right? Especially in today’s day and age where most things are now done online. I mean, you could even order your coffee for your example online, delivered to your door, etc. so are there any specific, let’s say, industries, Clare, or platforms which are disproportionately enabling fraud?
CLAIRE MAILLET: I think that it depends really. I think that all organizations need to ensure that everything they do is accessible. I’m not suggesting this needs to happen during the very early stages of a company’s founding. At that stage, they might not be ready to say, ‘Before we decide on our customer model, we need to ensure that people who stammer arenât unfairly treated.’ However, itâs important to prioritize accessibility as the company develops. But with regards to product, tech teams, design and customer service teams, I think there’s an overwhelming assumption that all of those teams are going to have mostly, if not all, people who don’t have a disability or a difference of some kind.
So therefore those things aren’t going to be taken into consideration. Whereas if those teams, for example, in customer services had someone who had a speech impediment, or if a tech team or/and design team had someone who was hearing impaired or, speech impaired, then that’s automatically going to fade into the conversation because the people that impacts are directly in your team. So I think that also leads to a diversity in terms of the hiring space as well. But this can go on and on and on. But I think that it also comes down to the hiring. So the people that are going to be using your product that’s tested by people internally, but if they don’t represent all of your users, then you’re unknowingly going to exclude a lot of people.
TOM TARANIUK: Yeah, criminal groups will focus on marginalized groups, communities, right? And traditionally speaking, that would be elderly people. We hear a lot of these call scams, etc., people who are alone and isolated, and these groups will form the basis of targeting these individuals where financial crime impact society massively within these communities. So we do need to do more to combat it.
And why do you think fraudsters focus on these marginalized groups? What makes them more attractive targets? And do you believe people with invisible disabilities could be a potential target for organized criminal groups?
Suggested read: Detecting Romance and Dating Scams: A 2024 Guide for Dating Platforms and Their Users
CLAIRE MAILLET: That’s a really interesting question. I think it’s a case of those people being less likely to speak up, disclose, or come forward to friends, family, law enforcement, etc. There’s an element of shame because they may already be in a vulnerable position due to their disability or personal circumstances. Adding an extra layer of, ‘Because of how I am, I’ve now been taken advantage of,’âthat’s potentially makes them easier targets.
I haven’t necessarily seen it with individuals who have invisible disabilities. However, as everything becomes more digital, online, or app-based, it’s definitely making it easier for fraudsters. By making things more accessible to vulnerable individuals or those normally excluded, you’re also automatically making it more accessible to fraudsters. So it’s definitely a double edged sword, I would say.
TOM TARANIUK: I would agree with that as well. Is that why you thinkâor how you thinkâdigital discrimination influences who ultimately becomes a victim of fraud?
CLAIRE MAILLET: Yeah. Because if you have people who can’t access services in the normal quote unquote way, then they’re going to need extra measures, extra assistance or different processes to assist them.
And so they’re going to make it easier for the customer to access because of their needs. But also it’s going to make it easier for criminals to bypass. I think there’s a balance there between making it easier for customers to access their products and their services, but in a way that it’s still being able to protect them from economic crime as well.
TOM TARANIUK: Thanks, Claire. We’re going to take a quick break now and get right back into it.
This conversation highlights how fraud disproportionately affects marginalized communities, deepening digital inequality. That’s where Greenflag, a project we’re incredibly proud of here, at Sumsub. So imagine this 620 million people worldwide, almost $2 trillion in spending power, are excluded from digital services due to barriers such as outdated IDs or appearance changes. We at Sumsub understand the hardships faced by those excluded in the digital world. With innovative solutions like non-document verification, we’re empowering governments and businesses alike to include people from all backgrounds and ensure everyone can access the services they need. You can learn more about Greenflag at Greenflag.me and let’s ensure no one is left behind in the digital world.
At Sumsub, we believe in creating a people friendly digital future, one where every honest user can access essential services no matter where they’re from or what challenges that they face.
This mission has inspired us to launch Greenflagâa campaign addressing digital inequalityâand our research has revealed that over 627 million people globally are locked out of digital services, representing over 1.8 trillion USD in untapped economic potential. This exclusion is due to four main barriers outdated ID formats, a lack of digital literacy changes in appearance, and systematic bias tied to the country of origin as well.
So, Claire, our question to you, why do you think digital exclusion remains a widespread issue even in 2024? And how does the number of 627 million sound to you?
CLAIRE MAILLET: Well, that number’s pretty big. I think that’s a technical term. It’s kind of scary, to think that that many people and actually that that much of a contribution to the economy is being lost, essentially. With regards to why in 2024, I mean, if you look back at all of these issues that have sort of been pushed into the spotlight over the last few years, you’ll have people saying, oh, but this is and 2010, we shouldn’t be talking about this now and then you find that, five years later, people are saying it’s 2015.
We shouldn’t be talking about this now. It should have happened ages and ages ago, and we’re still doing it in 2024. And so it sort of makes you wonder, are we still going to be going, guys? It’s 2050. We shouldn’t be talking about this now. I think that it it does call for widespread change. And that I think takes from its from its core its education.
Understanding stammering means recognizing it isnât something that can simply be âcuredâ through singing or speech therapy. These methods might work for some but not for everyone. Society often expects people with invisible disabilities to conform to traditional norms, and if they donât fit, itâs seen as their problem. However, instead of trying to change the 3% of people who stammer in the UK, why not educate the 97% who donât? This shift is essential for creating an inclusive, digitally accessible industry where people understand how disabilities impact individuals and the customer journey.
Suggested read: Addressing the Digital Divide in 2024
Organizations need to take steps beyond acknowledging disabilities, involving design, tech, and customer service teams in creating inclusive products and services. Without diverse employees testing and validating processes, businesses risk excluding those who donât fit into their mold. This affects recruitment, compliance, and product design. A company that builds services only for a narrow subset of customers essentially signals they donât value others, contributing to the exclusion of 620 million people globally.
TOM TARANIUK: Businesses must adopt a top-down approach to inclusion, addressing barriers like outdated ID requirements and other blockers such as changing medical conditions. Accessibility extends to areas like digital onboarding for banks, decentralized finance, or even verifying eligibility for services like international COVID vaccines. Companies need inclusive hiring practices, policies, and individuals who understand these challenges firsthand. By building this environment, businesses can foster meaningful change and ensure accessibility for all.
CLAIRE MAILLET: Absolutely. And I think it also comes down to training for individuals too. So in universities, you’ll find that all staff have to undergo mandatory training for mental health and disabilities, that you’ll find that those are very high level and they don’t go into a great deal of detail.
And I’m not saying that every single disability training should go through every single disability that’s out there. Otherwise we’d never get any work done. But I think that with regards to those which impact the customer journey more, I feel like they should sort of be at the top. And I think that the best way to learn from those people are to get those people into companies talking about their experiences.
When I’ve been delivering my talks on the impact of speech impediments on counter fraud controls, it’s because I can be in the very privileged position and that I can come at it from both sides, because I’m both a customer who stammers, and I’m also a counter fraud professional working in, financial services. So I think it’s it’s also looking at the training of staff that as a whole. So we all undergo the financial crime training and data privacy training, all of that. I’ve never been on mental health training or disability training within financial services, even when I’ve had to deal with customers. So I think it’s also taking a look at how your staff educated.
TOM TARANIUK: Absolutely. I completely agree with you there. I mean, we talk about education a lot, especially on our podcastsâpretty much every single issue. So it’s I think it’s the most important factor, when we’re talking about people protecting themselves more. So we’ve talked about the onus being on businesses sometimes, but also the onus being on the the individual.
Another significant challenge is digital literacy, particularly for older populations or underserved communities as well. The annual reports by the Federal Trade Commission to Congress revealed that older Americans lost close to 2 billion USD to fraud in 2023 alone, with unreported cases possibly reaching over 60 billion USD. So our question to you, Claire, how can businesses and governments tailor fraud prevention tools for older users without reducing usability?
CLAIRE MAILLET: I think, again, it comes down to education. I’m always slightly wary of organizations being told that they have to have all of this tooling in place. They have to have the latest tech, the best analysts, because you can give a company all of the budget in the world. You can give them the best staff. You can get them the latest tech, but there’s only so much persuading of a customer that something is suspicious that you can do, and you can persuade them all the way up to the point where they press that button to send funds or to disclose personal information. And I think it really just depends on to what extent organizations are going to educate their customers.
I once worked in a fintech where I wanted to add a control in. So in our SMS, one time passcodes, messages that I wanted to add the sentence ‘Please don’t share this with anyone’. You know, just a very-very simple sentence that you seeâa lot nowadays. And I was told by my exac team that to add that sentence in would cost over 150,000 pounds, so they weren’t going to bother. And you think, yeah, but that’s probably going to save you millions in fraud losses. So you’re not wanting to spend the upfront cost in order to potentially prevent all of this fraud. And I think because you can’t see the funds that you’re preventing because you can’t show them, well, this is all of the money that I’ve helped you save because you can’t see it. It’s something to learn after the fact.
Once you’re hit by that many fraud cases, absolutely, it becomes a serious concern. It’s not something I feel companies find particularly appetizing. If you were to tell your executive team, ‘We’ve lost 2 million pounds to fraud last year,’ they’ll respond with, ‘Hereâs some moneyâsort out the problem.’ Off you go.
Whereas, if you say, ‘I could save you 2 million,’ they’ll ask, ‘How much is it going to cost?’ I think it comes down to the education and risk appetite. That’s the case for both customers and organizations.
TOM TARANIUK: 100%. It’s not just on the organization’s side. I know weâve talked about educating customers too, but as we discussed in our last episode, fraud prevention isnât just a business problem. It’s a shared responsibility across governments. Let’s say companies and the individuals themselves as well. So education and awareness campaigns hopefully help to bridge this gap. But I would ask you, Claire, how can a global, let’s say, partnership or partnerships foster a unified approach within this industry?
CLAIRE MAILLET: I think it needs to come from the very top. And the reason why I say that is because I think we’re also at risk of over collaboration, which I know will make some people fall off their chair, because that goes against the grain of what we’re supposed to be doing. But I think that whilst collaboration is obviously brilliant, I think there is the risk of forming too many silos essentially by trying to collaborate. So you see all of these groups being set up, which is brilliant. And all of these organizations, these charities, to be able to tackle a certain part of the fraud landscape. But if we create too many of those, we could be exacerbating the problem because we’re creating more silos as a result of trying to create fewer silos.
I think another issue is the lack of standardization because fraud data is obviously key. That’s how we are able to measure what we’re doing, to measure what works, what doesn’t work. And I think that given that there is no standardization across the globe with regards to the definition of fraud, but also the data that we have and the data that we can share and which organizations collect which data.
It’s all very disjointed. And so it’s easy for me to sit here and say, ‘Oh, it isn’t working’. But I feel like we need to acknowledge that there are problems first. And I think that the data and the standardization of that is one of the foundations of being able to accurately measure what the problem is and the scale of the problem, because fraud can’t be really accurately measured.
And I think that the data that underpins that needs to be fixed, potentially in order to help us to understand the problem. Because if we can’t understand the problem, how can we try and solve the problem in an effective way?
TOM TARANIUK: Got you. I mean, not everyone also has a platform, right? And, we’ll be able to explain the issues at hand. Of course, you need data to back that up. But when we’re talking about maybe a listener on the school who may have, invisible disability, as we’d say, how can this individual advocate for themselves if they’re excluded or discriminated against by a fraud prevention system, protocol or just to resonate quite heavily with what we’re talking about today? Because of course, we can look at the data, we can see that maybe there’s an issue and maybe we can’t see how big it is.
CLAIRE MAILLET: It’s a very tricky one because some people will willingly disclose their disability and others will not. And I think it’s unfair to be forced into that position, or to feel like you have to disclose when you aren’t comfortable doing so. So for those people who have a disability, who have a difference of some kind, don’t feel forced into disclosing when you’re not ready, because that can have substantial psychological impact as a result of that. However, if you have friends or family or colleagues who can help you with that, who can be your allies, who can be your spokespeople until you get to that point of actually ‘I think now is the time for me to do this myself’âthen I think that that’s one of the best assets that you can have is people on your side, people who are your cheerleaders, who understand what it’s like and who can help you fight those battles.
TOM TARANIUK: 100%. And I would say, you’ve given so much great practical advice there to, obviously, for the individual sake, but also for businesses as well. But of course, you know, not everyone also has the structure around to sort of break that cycle and actually and get out there. And of course, with companies and organizations, there needs to be a more onus on them for educating the public that it is okay to come forward, that they do have the controls in place, which are going to allow individuals to access inclusive digital services as well.
Clare, looking ahead to 2025, what trends or innovations could significantly reduce digital fraud and also at the same time promote equality?
CLAIRE MAILLET: So I think 2025 is going to be a really interesting year for this topic because the European Accessibility Act is due to come out in 2025, which is doing similar things to what Consumer Duty of Care is doing in the UK. It’s aiming to make all products and all services, accessible to everyone. I think that with regards to how that impacts fraud controls, it’s going to force companies to understand how the customers that they own, knowingly or unknowingly, excluding, how they are impacted. And as a result of that, I think it’s going to open up their eyes to how fraud can be perpetrated against these marginalized groups and therefore more mitigating factors that need to be put in place.
So I think it’s going to be one of learning. It’s going to be a year of education, a year of empathy, perhaps,âto be able to put your put yourself in someone else’s shoes and to hopefully be open minded and be willing to learn that actually how I’ve set up my, company, how I’ve, written these, processes, how I’ve and designed this product may not be in the best, most accessible way.
So I think we all need to be open to the idea that actually, we may not have done things right in the past, and that now is the time to actually rethink that, to go back to the drawing board, start again, and to ensure that actually we are including everyone. Because people with and disabilities and, differences will already feel excluded from large parts of society.
As organizations offering products, it’s our duty to ensure that they aren’t feeling more, exclude it than they already are.
TOM TARANIUK: Definitely. It’s about their own access, of course, to digital services, which of course make lives easier. Better. But also these businesses need to understand if they are innovating in 2025 to include hundreds of millions of individuals which otherwise would not have access to their services. That it is also a very good thing on their side. They will be, let’s say, onboarding new users, providing them services which allow them to move their their life in a very positive direction. And but of course, allow them to bring those people into the fold, into a community of people who are sharing whether or not it’s monetary marketplaces or otherwise, information and other means as well.
So, Clare, thank you very much for covering such an important topic with me.
CLAIRE MAILLET: Thank you very much. And thank you for letting me talk about this specific subject, because I feel like sometimes the platforms for talking about fraud-related topics are very much focused on the same things: so the perfect customer journey, the new, legislation, all that kind of thing. So to be able to sort of break the norm and to talk about this means a lot. So thank you very much.
TOM TARANIUK: Our pleasure. Honestly, I, it’s, nice to take a, as you said, a new direction with the conversations that we do have on what the fraud. Before we go, I wanted to ask you a few final questions. If that’s all right, and we’d like to end the show. If you’ve seen the episodes before with our guests on a personal level through five quick-fire questions. So are you ready?
CLAIRE MAILLET: Yes.
TOM TARANIUK: Fantastic. So, Claire, when choosing a digital wallet, do you go for more features or better security?
CLAIRE MAILLET: Better security. Easy.
TOM TARANIUK: Great answer. I’d say the same. Strong passwords or biometric authentication?
CLAIRE MAILLET: Biometric authentication, if done correctly.
TOM TARANIUK: Fantastic. Number three: is online fraud more about technology flaws or human error?
CLAIRE MAILLET: Human error.
TOM TARANIUK: Wonderful. Four: what’s one habit you rely on to stay safe online?
CLAIRE MAILLET: Gosh. Question everything. Don’t trust anyone or anything, which makes me very cynical, but that’s what I say.
TOM TARANIUK: Yeah, you need to do what you need to do. If you could have any other career than the one you’re in, Claire, what would it be?
CLAIRE MAILLET: So up until my early 20s, I won. I was going down the path of becoming a professional dancer. And then I was told to get a real job. So, I would be a professional dancer.
TOM TARANIUK: Well. Let your dreams be dreams. I still have, my passion to be an astronaut. Still. Not going to happen.
To wrap up today’s episode. Seventh of season two, I’d like to share some of our key reflections. Today we have learned a lot about inclusivity, the barriers to those affected by disabilities, whether or not they are visible or hidden. In fact, within the UK, we want to be the most accessible country in the world, but there is a lot of work to be done to get there. As according to the House of Commons, 16 million people in the UK or 24% of the population, are considered disabled, whilst 1 to 3% of UK adults have a stammer. Claire has highlighted some important issues and also some of the key barriers or moats for those affected. Where individuals who are unable to access digital services due to their disabilities may lose access to things that some of us may take for granted on a day to day basis.
Whilst the industries that would be serving them are unable to access a critical customer base. We discussed the importance of addressing this issue of access and the promotion of equality head on. Well, I believe we can conclude that’s a unified approach is needed not only in the UK to make sure those affected have access to the services they need through fraud controls, which are adapted to their requirements, and onboarding journeys which take into account their disabilities, whether hidden or not.
Education, I believe, comes first, top down from the government and then from industry leaders through campaigns, both to educate the staff, to implement the correct changes and controls, but also for the public, so that they are aware they are able to access these services as well.
