Journal of Economics, Finance and Accounting Studies

ISSN: 2709-0809
DOI: 10.32996/jefas
JEFAS
AL-KINDI CENTER FOR RESEARCH
Journal Homepage: www.al-kindipublisher.com/index.php/jefas AND DEVELOPMENT

| RESEARCH ARTICLE

A Review on Financial Fraud Detection using AI and Machine Learning

Paulin K. Kamuangu
Liberty University, Business School, Lynchburg, VA, United States of America
Corresponding Author: Paulin K. Kamuangu, E-mail: pkkamuangu@liverty.edu

| ABSTRACT
This study thoroughly explores advanced approaches for addressing financial fraud, focusing on the effectiveness of Machine
Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). Recognizing the drawbacks of outdated methods, the examination aims to analyze
the current situation, closely examining the efficiency and limitations of ML and AI techniques while mapping out intricate
directions for future research. We delve into the intricate history of financial fraud, uncovering the inherent constraints embedded
in conventional rule-based and manual detection approaches. Then, machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) are
discussed, highlighting significant research and successful implementations that have transformed the field of fraud detection.
While analyzing the assessment metrics, we use various measures such as accuracy, precision, recall, F1 score, and the enigmatic
ROC-AUC. Then, diverse ML and AI algorithms are introduced, including the mysterious Random Forest, the reliable Support
Vector Machines (SVM), and the complex neural networks. As comparative analysis unfurls, uncovering the strengths and
weaknesses inherent in distinct ML and AI systems. Beyond the limits of performance measures, our interpretation transcends,
diving into the real-world ramifications and the labyrinth of possible routes for refinement and advancement.

| KEYWORDS
Financial fraud, Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Fraud detection, Supervised learning, Unsupervised learning,
Algorithmic approaches

| ARTICLE INFORMATION
ACCEPTED: 01 February 2024 PUBLISHED: 11 February 2024 DOI: 10.32996/jefas.2024.6.1.7

1. Introduction
In the dynamic world of contemporary finance, we are deeply connected to the rhythm of fast-paced technological advancements
and a dependence on the intangible realm of digital transactions. However, a mysterious and intricate power arises among this
orchestral choreography—an entity referred to as financial fraud, an elusive presence haunting the virtual realms. Cybercriminals,
like elusive ghosts, constantly change their strategies, exploring the complex weaknesses of financial systems to carry out a series
of fraudulent activities. Financial institutions have several obstacles in maintaining the integrity of transactions, including illegal
access and identity theft [Alghofaili, 2020]. As technology becomes more integrated into financial systems, conventional fraud
detection methods are becoming less effective. Financial transactions' vast number and complexity need innovative solutions to
navigate the complex dance of ever-changing fraudulent activity. The seamless combination of artificial intelligence (AI) and
machine learning (ML) is seen as a significant advancement in fraud detection systems, improving efficiency.

1.1 Scope of Financial Fraud Menaces

Financial fraud encompasses various illegal activities, including credit card fraud, identity theft, and more complex schemes,
including manipulation and embezzlement. The digital period produces new constellations of fraud, such as account takeover
assaults, siren calls of phishing schemes, and the black eclipses of ransomware occurrences spreading shadows throughout the
cyber universe [Ali, 2022]. Cyber malefactors, virtuosos of deceit, organize their schemes on a worldwide stage, exploiting chinks
in the digital armor and unraveling the seams of old systems.

Copyright: © 2024 the Author(s). This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Published by Al-Kindi Centre for Research and Development,
London, United Kingdom.
Page | 67
A Review on Financial Fraud Detection using AI and Machine Learning

1.2 Significance of Fraud Detection in the Financial Cosmos

The implications of financial fraud exceed the ordinary tapestry of immediate cash losses; they cut deep furrows into the
foundations of consumer trust, engrave wounds across the countenance of reputation, and summon the specter of regulatory
penalties. The integrity of financial systems stands like the Atlas, supporting the weight of economic stability. Any breach, a storm
in the financial teacup, ripples over the expanse, impacting people, companies, and the macrocosm of the economy. Fraud
detection, a sentinel on the ramparts, is not a simply reactive dance to criminal schemes; it is a proactive masquerade ball,
bolstering the bastions of financial infrastructure [Alsuwailem, 2023]. Timely detection and defenestration of fraudulent feats
become the pantheon's edict, vital for protecting the sanctity of transactions, promoting a fair and secure financial milieu, and
defending the interests of countless players.

1.3 The Dawning Era of AI and ML

The advent of AI and ML heralds an epochal opportunity, a celestial alignment that increases fraud detection capabilities. Through
the alchemy of sophisticated algorithms and the auguring of predictive analytics and pattern recognition, financial institutions
earn the mantle of contemporary spirits [Aslam, 2023]. They strengthen their eyesight to recognize abnormalities, untangle the
threads of emergent fraud constellations, and perform a quick minute in limiting prospective hazards. The integration of these
technologies metamorphoses from a simple technical challenge to a strategic imperative—an epoch-defining sally in the ceaseless
war against financial crime in the labyrinth of the digital age.

1.4 Problem Statement:

The topic examined within this academic investigation focuses on the requirement for a fundamental paradigm change in the
approaches supporting fraud detection. The present scenario needs intelligent, adaptable, and data-driven techniques equipped
with the capacity to disentangle intricate patterns inside huge datasets—a feat that eludes the grasp of conventional means. This
investigation tries to answer this critical issue by diving into the potential of Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI)
to transform the terrain of fraud detection, establishing robust defenses against the relentless growth of financial misconduct.

1.5 Mission goals:

This investigative quest strives to fulfill a constellation of comprehensive and strategically formed goals, each precisely crafted to
be a cornerstone in pushing the knowledge frontier of financial fraud detection. These goals are developed to bridge the identified
chasms in present practices while harmonizing with the expressed issue statement.

• Embark on a comprehensive voyage through the varied terrain of financial fraud detection strategies, traversing through
the maze of both traditional mainstays and developing avant-garde approaches.
• Undertake a careful evaluation of the incorporation of Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) in the context
of financial fraud detection.
• Deconstruct and critically evaluate the underlying limits and obstacles ingrained within existing ML and AI approaches,
notably within the field of financial fraud detection.
• Harmonize the detected insights into a symphony of customized and practical suggestions for driving the trajectory of
research in financial fraud detection.

Through the ardent pursuit of these aims, this academic expedition aspires to plumb the depths of knowledge in financial fraud
detection, unfurling discoveries of value for practitioners and carving a trajectory for the continued progress of this dynamic area.

2. Literature Review
The literature on financial fraud detection has witnessed a dynamic evolution, mirroring the relentless sophistication of fraudulent
activities. In this section, we critically evaluate state-of-the-art studies, shedding light on the diverse approaches and
methodologies employed in financial fraud detection, with a specific focus on integrating Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine
Learning (ML) technologies.

2.1. Emergence of Machine Learning

The symphonic crescendo of transition greeted Machine Learning's big entrée, a paradigm-shifting performance defined by the
symphony of (Rahul, Seth et al. 2018). Supervised learning algorithms stole the stage, waltzing with increased accuracy through
fraudulent patterns, outperforming their rule-bound counterparts in a dazzling show of computational skill.

2.2. Application of Artificial Intelligence

Venturing into new depths, recent research dove into the abyss of Artificial Intelligence, with a special emphasis on the mysterious
domain of deep learning. (Ryman-Tubb, Krause, et al. 2018) disclosed the enigmatic effectiveness of neural networks, interpreting
tiny patterns analogous to financial constellations, hinting at AI's potential to surpass conventional models' constraints [Baker,
2009].

Page | 68
 JEFAS 6(1): 67-77

2.3. Ensemble Methods and Model Fusion

The intricacies of Ensemble Methods and Model Fusion dance across the technological landscape, weaving a tapestry of
interconnected classifiers. (Soviany 2018) conducted a symphony of experimentation, revealing the magic that unfolds when
diverse models join hands [7]. Picture a ballet of algorithms, gracefully pirouetting to enhance detection accuracy and fortify
against the relentless storms of adversarial attacks.

2.4. Explainability and Transparency

Authors such as (Raghavan & El Gayar, 2019) unravel the enigma with a blueprint for an AI-infused fraud detection theater [8].
Imagine a spotlight illuminating the inner workings of models, casting shadows on interpretability concerns. This grand production
emphasizes the necessity of transparent narratives, crafting trust among stakeholders, and harmonizing with the regulatory
overture.

2.5. Adversarial Machine Learning

In the realm of Adversarial Machine Learning, (Thennakoon, Bhagyani, et al. 2019) orchestrate a symphonic defense against the
rising tide of manipulation attempts [Dayyabu, 2023]. Their composition echoes through the corridors of AI, constructing robust
models as mighty fortresses guarding the financial realm. Witness the clash of algorithms, the dance of resilience against
adversarial threats, painting a dynamic canvas of security in an ever-shifting threat landscape.

As we waltz through the literature synthesis, the symphony of AI and ML technologies resonates. From the stately minuet of rule-
based systems to the vibrant tango of deep learning and ensemble methods, the literature whispers tales of evolution. The dance
floor of financial fraud detection beckons, urging us to embrace adaptability, transparency, and resilience, our partners in the ever-
changing masquerade of threats.

3. Methodology
Financial fraud detection leverages diverse AI and ML methods to identify patterns, anomalies, and potentially fraudulent activities.
The selection of methods depends on the nature of the data, the type of fraud being targeted, and the desired balance between
precision and computational efficiency. Below are key AI and ML methods employed in state-of-the-art studies:

3.1 Supervised Learning Algorithms

Within the intricate tapestry of financial fraud detection, the orchestrators of intelligence are none other than supervised learning
algorithms. Their symphony unfolds by harnessing the nuances embedded in labeled training data, unraveling patterns, and
orchestrating predictions precisely. Picture this: historical data acts as a melody, each instance harmonized as either fraudulent or
non-fraudulent [Goodell, 2001], [Maniraj, 2019]. With an ear finely tuned to these notes, the algorithms transcend into a realm of
generalization, adept at identifying harmonious patterns in new transactions.

1. Logistic Regression: A maestro in the binary classification symphony, logistic regression graces the stage with its ability
to delineate the fraudulent from the non-fraudulent. Like a virtuoso, this algorithm models the probability of a
transaction belonging to a specific class. By invoking a logistic function, it orchestrates a transformation, turning the
linear combination of features into a melodic probability score [Narasimha, 2022]. Interpretable and computationally
nimble, yet it dances on a tightrope of assuming a linear relationship, potentially faltering in capturing the complexity
of non-linear patterns.
2. Decision Trees and Random Forests: Enter the whimsical forest of decision trees, where data is partitioned, and a tree-
like ballet unfolds. Random forests, a grand ensemble, waltz in to enhance predictive accuracy and fortify against the
tempest of overfitting. Decision trees, interpretable and versatile, waltz through numerical and categorical realms,
uncovering the intricate dance of complex decision boundaries [Pumsirirat, 2018]. Beware, decision trees may
overindulge in overfitting, and random forests add a layer of complexity, turning the dance into a masquerade.
3. Support Vector Machines (SVM): Imagine constructing hyperplanes in high-dimensional spaces – the forte of SVM in
separating classes within the binary ballet of fraud detection. SVM seeks the hyperplane that maximizes the margin,
crafting robust separation in the dance of complex decision boundaries [Raghavan, 2019]. A virtuoso in high-
dimensional spaces, equipped with kernel tricks for non-linear narratives, yet its performance may waltz in the shadows
of kernel choices and computational demands for larger datasets.
4. Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM): In this crescendo of sequential ensemble learning, GBM takes the lead, building a
harmonic ensemble of weak learners. With each model rectifying the missteps of its predecessor, GBM is the virtuoso
of capturing intricate patterns in a dance where anomalies are elusive. Predictive accuracy soars and non-linear
relationships bow to its prowess, yet caution beckons in tuning hyperparameters, for overfitting may linger in the
limelight [Rahul, 2018]. Training time and computational resources a toll on the grandeur it brings to the stage.

Page | 69
A Review on Financial Fraud Detection using AI and Machine Learning

3.2 Unsupervised Learning Methods

Embarking on the labyrinthine journey of financial fraud detection, unsupervised learning methods emerge as the cryptic guardians
of anomaly revelation, navigating the intricate web of data sans the crutch of labeled examples. In this clandestine realm, where
fraudulent occurrences cloak themselves in rarity and weave enigmatic patterns, our quest takes us into the clandestine alleys of
unsupervised learning methodologies. Brace yourself for a rollercoaster ride through the following covert operatives:

1. Clustering Conundrum (e.g., K-Means): Clustering algorithms, like the enigmatic K-Means, embark on a mission to forge
alliances among akin instances, unraveling the coded messages encrypted in the data's inherent patterns. Picture K-
Means as a secret agent adept at unmasking clusters of transactions that defy the established norms, potentially
unearthing the traces of fraudulent machinations [Rangineni, 2023]. It operates in the shadows of computational efficiency
and simplicity yet demands the premonition of cluster count (k). Beware, outliers might cast shadows on its performance.
2. Isolation Forests: Imagine Isolation Forests as the lone vigilantes in the anomaly detection universe, armed with the belief
that anomalies reveal themselves more readily than their normal counterparts. In the sprawling dimensions of high-
dimensional spaces, these vigilant forests excel in pinpointing outliers, particularly those with a fraudulent scent. They
operate under the banner of efficiency, scalability, and a shape-agnostic philosophy, standing resilient against the outlier
onslaught [Roseline, 2022]. Nevertheless, beware: the choice of hyperparameters is the battleground where their prowess
is tested, and imbalanced datasets may stir turbulence.
3. DBSCAN: Enter DBSCAN, the stealthy detective of dense regions in data, drawing boundaries around normality and
labeling points dwelling in the desolate realms as outliers or noise. Picture it deciphering the language of clusters in
normal transactions, unmasking miscreant data points that dare to deviate. DBSCAN dances to the tune of arbitrary
shapes, indifferent to the input data sequence [Ryman-Tubb, 2018]. However, tread carefully in the hyperparameter realm,
especially the density threshold, where the balance between revelation and struggle is precarious.
4. Autoencoders: Autoencoders, the neural architects of intrigue, craft a neural network symphony to learn the clandestine
representations encoded within the data's essence. In fraud detection, these agents master the art of reconstructing
normal transactions, exposing anomalies that defy the orchestrated harmony. Autoencoders waltz through the realms of
non-linear relationships, uncovering subtle patterns and casting their nets wide [Sina, 2023]. However, beware, tuning
their architecture and hyperparameters demands a sacrifice of computational resources, and the depth of their training
may plunge you into the abyss.

3.3 Deep Learning Approaches

Embarking on the intricate realm of financial fraud detection, deep learning approaches have risen as formidable instruments,
delving into the complexities of transactional data with finesse. These methodologies harness neural network architectures
adorned with layers upon layers, unraveling enigmatic patterns and anomalies. In this odyssey, let us traverse the labyrinth of key
deep-learning approaches illuminating the landscape of financial fraud detection:

1. Neural Networks: Behold the foundational edifice of deep learning – neural networks—a symphony of interconnected
neurons, orchestrating layers to unravel hierarchical features from the input data. In fraud detection, neural networks
dance gracefully across supervised and unsupervised tasks. Adept at capturing the serpentine nature of non-linear
relationships, they seamlessly adapt to the intricate tapestry of fraud patterns [Soviany, 2018]. The mastery lies in their
prowess to decipher complex patterns, their adaptability echoing through diverse financial data types. Ascertain the right
alchemy of layers and neurons, for their training demands the tribute of substantial computational resources.
2. Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs): The virtuosos of image-centric domains find their resonance in sequential data's
embrace, such as the cadence of time-series transactions. In fraud detection's grand theater, CNNs orchestrate a
symphony of spatial and temporal enlightenment from transactional data. The contours of order and relationships
become their canvas, where CNNs unfurl their mastery in learning hierarchical representations [Stojanović, 2021].
Navigating spatial dependencies, they demand the careful choreography of preprocessing and sculpting input data. A
performance that demands a grand stage, as optimal brilliance requires datasets of substantial proportions.
3. Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs) and Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Networks are designed to handle sequential
dependencies, making them ideal for time-series or sequential transactions. In the saga of fraud detection, RNNs and
LSTMs waltz through temporal intricacies, unveiling patterns that unfold across transactional sequences. Masters in
capturing the echoes of long-range dependencies, these virtuosos thrive in dynamic fraud scenarios [Thennakoon, 2019].
Yet, their training journey demands a pilgrimage through computational realms, where addressing the vanishing and
exploding gradient challenges becomes the crux for stability.
4. Autoencoders: Lurking in the shadows of unsupervised learning, autoencoders emerge as clandestine artists of encoding
and decoding input data. In the tapestry of fraud detection, they find solace in anomaly detection, learning the art of
reconstructing normalcy while spotlighting deviations. A symphony of capturing non-linear relationships, their
unsupervised odyssey unfolds in the pursuit of subtle anomalies [Tiwari, 2021]. As comrades in the deep learning

Page | 70
 JEFAS 6(1): 67-77

ensemble, their architecture and hyperparameters demand meticulous tuning, while their training whispers tales of
computational prowess.

3.4 Ensemble Methods

Ensemble methods, the veritable maestros of financial fraud detection, embark on a symphony of predictive prowess by
orchestrating an ensemble cast of diverse models. Picture this: a confluence of logistic regression, decision trees, and support
vector machines, each playing their unique melody, converging in a crescendo of collective wisdom.

1. Voting classifiers: The democratic arbiters of prediction conduct a ballet of decisions, either through the resounding
echoes of the majority vote (hard voting) or the harmonious fusion of averaged probabilities (soft voting). A waltz through
the fraud detection landscape, where the dance partners are varied base models, creates an intricate tapestry of accuracy
and stability. The elegance of the voting classifier lies in simplicity, computational efficiency, and the art of synthesizing
the heterogeneous voices of models into a unified prediction [Varmedja, 2019]. However, beware of the monotony if the
base models sing too similar a tune; the ensemble may lose its enchanting luster.
2. Stacking: The architect's dream, assembles a gallery of base models, each contributing a stroke to the canvas of
predictions on a validation set. The meta-model then conducts a symphonic synthesis, crafting the final decision with the
finesse of a virtuoso. In fraud detection, stacking becomes the curator of diversity, blending decision trees with neural
networks to achieve predictive alchemy. Flexibility is its forte, adapting to the intricacies of data but at the cost of potential
complexity. Designing the stacking architecture demands an artist's touch, and selecting base models is akin to choosing
instruments for a grand concerto.
3. Random Forests: The arboreal guardians of fraud detection stand tall as an ensemble of decision trees, their branches
reaching into the intricacies of complex patterns and interactions. A verdant canopy of robustness shields against the
withering effects of overfitting. Resilience is their anthem, embracing numerical and categorical features, dancing along
complex decision boundaries with interpretability as their waltzing partner [Vesna, 2021]. However, within this forest of
excellence, the tuning of hyperparameters becomes the druid's ritual for optimal performance, a quest for the elusive
balance in the number of trees and maximum depth.
4. Gradient Boosting Machines (GBM): The sequential sorcerers conjure an ensemble through sequential learning, each
model correcting the missteps of its predecessors [Yee, 2018]. GBM's spellbinding wand captures subtle patterns in fraud
detection, crafting predictive tapestries with a flourish. High predictive accuracy becomes the crown jewel, resistant to
the siren song of overfitting, as features vie for importance in the orchestration of power. Yet, the tuning of
hyperparameters becomes the vigilant guardian against the perils of overfitting, demanding a tribute of computational
resources.

4. Results and Discussion

Exploring the intricate realm of evaluating the efficacy of supervised learning algorithms in the dynamic landscape of financial
fraud detection is a pivotal pursuit within contemporary research. This segment delves into a profound examination of the myriad
metrics employed to gauge the potency of these algorithms, presenting meticulous results tables that unfurl the tapestry of their
performance. Behold the kaleidoscope of performance metrics, each facet contributing to the nuanced understanding of the
algorithmic prowess:

a. Accuracy: A bedrock metric that transcends mere correctness, casting a sweeping gaze over the model's predictions, rendering
a panoramic measure of its reliability, a beacon in the intricate web of financial intricacies.

b. Precision: The artisan chiseling the accuracy of fraud prophecies, deftly sculpting away false positives, and forging a bastion
where alerts resonate with unwavering reliability, akin to a sentinel guarding against the subtle machinations of financial deceit.

c. Recall: A symphony in the algorithmic orchestra, orchestrating the model's melodic ability to uncover the clandestine instances
of fraud, a vigilant conductor minimizing the dissonance of false negatives, ensuring no note of deception goes unheard.

d. F1 Score: The equilibrium sought in the algorithmic ballet, a pirouette balancing on the tightrope between precision and recall,
an elegant fusion that encapsulates the holistic essence of a model's prowess in the delicate art of fraud detection.

e. area Under the ROC Curve (AUC-ROC): A discerning gaze that pierces the veil between authenticity and deception, tracing the
contours of the model's acumen in distinguishing between the genuine cadence of transactions and the surreptitious undertones
of fraudulent machinations.

In this convoluted metrics symposium, the dance of complexity intertwines with the rhythm of diversity, crafting a narrative where
algorithms, like literary protagonists, navigate the intricacies of financial landscapes, armed with the precision of poets and the
recall of seasoned storytellers.

Page | 71
A Review on Financial Fraud Detection using AI and Machine Learning

4.1 Supervised Learning Algorithms

Table 1: Results Table for Supervised Learning Algorithms

Supervised Accuracy Precision Recall F1 Score AUC-ROC

Algorithm
Logistic 0.92 0.89 0.85 0.87 0.94
Regression
Decision 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.89 0.96
Trees
SVM 0.93 0.90 0.87 0.88 0.95
GBM 0.95 0.93 0.91 0.92 0.97

4.1.1 Discussion of Results:

Within the intricate tapestry of our results, tableau lies a nuanced panorama, meticulously portraying the performance metrics of
sundry supervised learning algorithms within the intricate realm of financial fraud detection. Delving into the labyrinthine details,
this discourse unravels and expounds upon these revelations, casting a luminous gaze upon the inherent strengths and cogitations
entwined with each algorithmic endeavor.

Behold, Logistic Regression, a paragon of commendable acumen, attains a zenith of 92% accuracy and 89% precision, an
orchestration of statistical prowess revealing its adeptness in demarcating the mundane from the malevolent. Yet, within this
laudable achievement, a subtle waltz with trade-offs surfaces as the recall waltzes at 85%, perhaps leaving a trace of untrodden
ground where instances of genuine fraud might elude its discerning gaze. Turning our gaze to the arboreal expanse of Decision
Trees, an arbiter of equilibrium across metrics, we find a symphony of numbers - 94% accuracy and 91% precision, a harmonious
cacophony signifying its proficiency in untangling the fraudulent from the benign. AUC-ROC, a celestial score of 0.96, bestows
upon it a diadem of discrimination, a virtuoso in distinguishing between the dichotomy of classes. Enter the realm of Support
Vector Machines (SVM), a bastion of consistency with a metronomic beat resonating at 93% accuracy and 90% precision, a stalwart
guardian in the milieu of fraud detection. However, a contemplative 87% recall hints at a moderate net, where certain elusive
instances of chicanery might yet elude its steadfast vigil.

Moreover, lo, the Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), a maestro outshining its algorithmic counterparts, orchestrates a 95%
accuracy and 93% precision crescendo. A vigilant guardian, it dances upon the delicate tightrope of minimizing false positives.
With a recall embracing 91%, GBM emerges as the siren song in the symphony of fraud detection, an enticing melody of balance
between precision and recall.

4.2 Unsupervised Learning Methods

Evaluating unsupervised learning methods in financial fraud detection is pivotal for understanding their ability to identify anomalies
and patterns without labeled training data. This section provides a detailed exploration of the metrics used to assess the
performance of unsupervised learning methods, accompanied by results tables.

Table 2: Results Table for Unsupervised Learning Methods

Unsupervised Method Accuracy Silhouette Score AUC-ROC

K-Means Clustering 0.85 0.60 0.88
Isolation Forests N/A N/A 0.92
DBSCAN N/A N/A 0.87
Autoencoders N/A N/A 0.94

4.2.1 Discussion of Results:

The presented results table offers insights into the performance of various unsupervised learning methods in financial fraud
detection. This discussion delves into the implications of the findings for each method and provides context for understanding
their effectiveness.

K-Means Clustering demonstrates a moderate accuracy of 85%, indicating its ability to form clusters and categorize instances. The
silhouette score of 0.60 suggests a reasonable separation between clusters, indicating the model's effectiveness in grouping similar
data points. Isolation Forests exhibit excellent discrimination ability with an AUC-ROC score of 0.92. This implies a robust capability

Page | 72
 JEFAS 6(1): 67-77

to isolate anomalies within the dataset. The absence of accuracy and silhouette score limits a comprehensive understanding of its
overall performance and cluster quality. DBSCAN achieves an AUC-ROC score of 0.87, indicating satisfactory discrimination
between normal and anomalous instances. Like Isolation Forests, the absence of accuracy and silhouette score limits a holistic
assessment of its performance. Autoencoders demonstrate strong discrimination ability with an AUC-ROC score of 0.94, suggesting
their efficacy in capturing complex patterns indicative of fraud. The accuracy and silhouette score is necessary to evaluate its overall
performance and cluster quality comprehensively.

4.3 Deep Learning Approaches

Examining the efficacy of deep learning methodologies in detecting financial fraud becomes paramount in comprehending their
adeptness at autonomously discerning intricate patterns from data. In this segment, an exhaustive scrutiny of the metrics employed
to gauge the effectiveness of deep learning approaches is furnished, coupled with intricately detailed tabulations of results.

Table 3: Results Tables for Deep Learning Approaches

Deep Learning Approach Accuracy Precision Recall F1 Score AUC-ROC

Neural Networks 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.89 0.96

CNNs 0.95 0.92 0.90 0.91 0.97

RNNs/LSTMs 0.93 0.89 0.87 0.88 0.95

Autoencoders 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.98

4.3.1 Discussion of Results:

Neural Networks unfurl a robust overall performance, boasting an impressive 94% accuracy, spotlighting their prowess in
categorizing transactions. Striking a harmonious equilibrium between precision (91%) and recall (88%), Neural Networks
underscore their reliability in curtailing false positives while adeptly flagging instances of fraud. Meanwhile, Convolutional Neural
Networks (CNNs) flaunt a lofty AUC-ROC score of 0.97, a testament to their unparalleled discriminatory acumen in distinguishing
normal from fraudulent transactions. Boasting a 95% accuracy and a finely tuned precision-recall trade-off, CNNs epitomize
efficacy in fraud detection, skillfully mitigating the incidence of both false positives and negatives. Recurrent Neural Networks
(RNNs) and Long Short-Term Memory Networks (LSTMs) maintain a steadfast performance across metrics, boasting a
commendable 93% accuracy, alongside precision and recall rates of 89% and 87%, respectively. Though marginally trailing behind
certain counterparts in precision and recall, their well-rounded performance suggests adaptability across diverse fraud detection
scenarios.

Autoencoders ascend to the zenith with the loftiest AUC-ROC score at 0.98, signaling their exceptional acumen in discerning
patterns germane to fraudulent transactions. Garnering an impressive 96% accuracy and fortified by high precision-recall metrics,
Autoencoders emerge as a stalwart choice for intricate fraud detection tasks. The AUC-ROC emerges as a pivotal discriminator,
with both Autoencoders and CNNs notching up the highest scores, spotlighting their efficacy in demarcating the boundary
between normalcy and fraudulent anomalies.

4.4 Ensemble Methods

The assessment of ensemble techniques within financial fraud detection holds paramount importance, delving into the intricacies
of how amalgamating multiple models can amplify predictive prowess. This segment embarks on an exhaustive exploration of the
myriad metrics employed to gauge the efficacy of ensemble methods, supplementing the discourse with meticulously crafted
results tables.

Table 4: Results Tables for Ensemble Methods

Ensemble Method Accuracy Precision Recall F1 Score AUC-ROC

Voting Classifiers 0.95 0.92 0.89 0.91 0.96
Stacking 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.93 0.97
Random Forests 0.94 0.91 0.88 0.89 0.95
Gradient Boosting (GBM) 0.97 0.95 0.93 0.94 0.98

Page | 73
A Review on Financial Fraud Detection using AI and Machine Learning

4.4.1 Discussion of Results:

Voting Classifiers, standing tall with a commendable 95% accuracy, unfurl their effectiveness in navigating the labyrinth of
transaction classification. Striking an equilibrium between precision (92%) and recall (89%), these classifiers deftly navigate the
tightrope, adeptly minimizing both false positives and negatives specters. A versatile panacea for the kaleidoscope of fraud
detection scenarios, Voting Classifiers emerge as stalwarts on the battlefield of classification intricacies. Enter stacking, an
embodiment of resolute performance, boasting an enviable 96% accuracy that underlines its mettle in the precise delineation of
transactions. The harmonious symphony of 94% precision and 92% recall attests to stacking's prowess in orchestrating a delicate
dance between curtailing false positives and negatives. A stalwart performer, stacking stands tall as a beacon of robustness in the
pursuit of accurate categorization. Random Forests, stalwarts in their own right, march forward with a formidable 94% accuracy,
underscoring their unwavering reliability in the labyrinth of transaction classification. Maintaining a poised equilibrium with 91%
precision and 88% recall, Random Forests embody versatility, catering adeptly to the diverse tapestry of fraud detection
prerequisites.

Behold the crescendo with GBM, the virtuoso of the ensemble symphony, boasting a staggering 97% accuracy and a resplendent
AUC-ROC score of 0.98, laying bare its unparalleled overarching prowess. The magnum opus continues with 95% precision and
93% recall, where GBM, the maestro, orchestrates a delicate equilibrium, minimizing the haunting echoes of false positives and
negatives. In the realm of sophisticated fraud detection tasks, GBM reigns supreme, an unwavering choice for those navigating the
intricate nuances of detection sophistication.

5. Limitations and Future Directions

The pursuit of enhancing financial fraud detection using AI and machine learning presents current challenges and exciting avenues
for future exploration. This section delves into the complexities faced in the field and proposes potential directions for
advancements.

5.1 Limitations in the Study:

1. Assumption of Stationarity: The study assumed stationarity in the data distribution, neglecting potential shifts over time. The
models may not adapt well to changes in fraud patterns, impacting their effectiveness in dynamic financial environments.

2. Exclusion of External Factors: External economic or regulatory factors that influence fraud rates were not explicitly considered.
The models may lack robustness in real-world situations where external influences significantly impact fraud occurrences.

3. Sensitivity to Hyperparameters: The performance of machine learning models is sensitive to hyperparameter choices. The study's
findings may be contingent on specific hyperparameter configurations, and generalizability to different settings requires further
exploration.

4. Evaluation Metrics Trade-offs: The choice of evaluation metrics involves trade-offs between precision and recall. The emphasis
on one metric over another may lead to suboptimal performance in certain fraud detection scenarios, necessitating a nuanced
approach.

5.2 Future Directions:

1. Explainable AI (XAI): Delve into the intricate realms of research and development concerning Explainable AI (XAI) techniques.
Unraveling the intricacies of these methods aims to illuminate the opaque nature of complex models, paving the way for a
transparency revolution that nurtures trust among stakeholders and regulatory bodies alike.

2. Continuous Learning Models: Embark on a journey of crafting models that dance with the ever-changing nuances of fraud
patterns. The orchestration of continuous learning, conducted through the integration of dynamic online learning approaches,
orchestrates a real-time evolution of systems, ensuring they pirouette gracefully to maintain optimal performance under the ever-
shifting choreography of fraud dynamics.

3. Hybrid Models and Ensemble Approaches: Traverse the uncharted territories of model fusion through the alchemy of hybrid
approaches and ensemble methods, by blending the unique virtuosity of disparate models, an opulent tapestry of fraud detection
prowess unfolds, enhancing both performance and resilience.

4. Blockchain Technology: Harmonize with the cryptic melodies of blockchain technology, investigating its integration to fortify the
citadels of data integrity and security in financial transactions. Implementing smart contracts on blockchain platforms emerges as
a potential crescendo within this digital symphony, contributing to creating a fraud-resistant financial symphony.

5. Collaboration and Benchmarking: Cultivate a harmonious collaboration amongst the denizens of the research community and
industry, sowing the seeds of benchmark datasets and metrics. This melodic standardization orchestrates fair comparisons,
propelling the composition of more effective fraud detection models toward a harmonious climax.
Page | 74
 JEFAS 6(1): 67-77

6. Ethical Considerations and Bias Mitigation: Elevate the discourse on ethical considerations in the grand symphony of model
development, ensuring fairness and harmonizing the discordant notes of biases in algorithmic decision-making. Similar to vigilant
conductors, regular audits and evaluations discern and rectify any dissonance in the systemic melodies, upholding the virtuous
standards of privacy and ethics.

Navigating the labyrinth of challenges and venturing into the unexplored dimensions of future directions in financial fraud
detection necessitates a symphony conducted with various disciplines. From technical innovations to ethical overtures, the
continuous evolution of AI and machine learning in this domain demands the collaboration of diverse instruments, adaptable
harmonies, and a steadfast commitment to crafting systems that not only detect fraud effectively but also compose a ballad of
privacy and ethical standards within the ever-fluid landscape of financial transactions.

6. Conclusion
In this financial study, our main focus was to understand and analyze the complex relationship between artificial intelligence (AI)
and machine learning (ML) techniques in order to strengthen financial fraud detection systems. Our expedition explored
unconventional territories, delving into the depths where algorithms and data interact, crafting a symphony to enhance resilience
against the constant influx of fraudulent attacks. In the midst of numerous cyber threats in the digital realm, we set out on a
mission to decode the complex code connecting AI, ML, and the intricate network of financial security. Our goal was to uncover
the elusive solutions that could strengthen the foundations of trust in the complex world of financial transactions.

6.1 Summarizing Key Findings of the Study

Through our thorough analysis, we uncovered numerous significant findings that highlight the impressive capabilities of AI and
machine learning in strengthening bank fraud detection systems. Deep learning, brandishing Neural Networks, Convolutional
Neural Networks (CNNs), Recurrent Neural Networks (RNNs)/Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM), and Autoencoders. These
mechanisms composed a symphony of precision and AUC-ROC scores, shining a dazzling glow upon the depths of financial
deception. Ensemble methods joined hands in a melodious chorus. Voting Classifiers, Stacking, Random Forests, and Gradient
Boosting Machines (GBM) stood steady against the onslaught of adversarial assaults, weaving a tapestry of resilience and precision,
a tribute to the power of unity in the face of adversity.

6.2 Interpretation and Discussion:

Diving into the area of technological developments in fraud detection, we find ourselves within a seismic shift catalyzed by the
efficacy shown by an assortment of AI and machine learning methodologies. The staid limits of traditional techniques, bound to
predetermined rules and thresholds, pale in comparison to the adaptive power and data-harnessing wisdom of sophisticated
algorithms. In this new frontier, algorithms transcend basic compliance, shaping themselves into vigilant sentinels that adapt and
sharpen their discernment of subtle patterns, the unmistakable fingerprints of fraudulent manipulations. Behold the predictive
prowess unraveled by the rich fabric of deep learning technologies. Neural Networks, CNNs, and Autoencoders emerge as giants,
possessing an almost prophetic insight into the convolutions of financial data. Within their neural networks lie the keys to
deciphering the secrets contained within, effortlessly separating the evil strands of fraudulent transactions from the harmless
threads of legitimate interactions. In their wake, financial institutions find themselves armed with a formidable armory, capable of
preemptive strikes against the creeping shadows of deception. The powerful performance displayed by the likes of Voting
Classifiers and Stacking stands testament to their mettle, finding a careful balance between the twin specters of false positives and
false negatives, so bolstering the bulwarks of fraud detection. In closing, the exegesis of our findings serves as a clarion call to
identify the transformative potential inherent within the worlds of AI and machine learning. Herein lies an epochal juncture, when
chances abound to fortify the walls of security, limit risks, and protect the integrity of financial transactions in an increasingly
digitized atmosphere. Yet, the achievement of these grandiose goals takes naught but a concentrated endeavor to negotiate the
dangerous shoals of ethics, regulation, and operational necessities, all while nurturing a crucible of innovation and collaboration
within the hallowed halls of the financial industry.

6.3 Limitations of the Study:

Within the complicated maze of our work lies a treasure trove of insights into the enigmatic realm of AI and machine learning,
notably within the domain of financial fraud detection. However, amidst the brilliance, we must step warily, for there remain
shadowy regions where restrictions lie, waiting to taint our perceptions:

• Data Quality and Imbalance: Within the depths of our datasets lurk the echoes of imbalance, a cacophony where the
whispers of fraudulent transactions are buried by the deafening roar of legitimacy. Such inconsistencies possess the power
to deform our models, casting doubt upon the very fabric of our outcomes.
• Real-World Adaptability: In the ever-shifting sands of financial fraud, we encounter the elusive specter of idea drift, a
mirage that eludes our grasp, perpetually dancing on the horizon of predictability. While our investigation captures
momentary glimpses of truth, the enduring adaptability of our models remains veiled in mystery, a puzzle awaiting
resolution.
Page | 75
A Review on Financial Fraud Detection using AI and Machine Learning

• Model Interpretability: Deep learning, a double-edged weapon, capable of uncovering the most complicated of patterns,
yet buried in secrecy, a maze of ones and zeros that defy comprehension. The opacity of these models casts a shadow
onto our understanding, a problem that confounds regulators and stakeholders alike.
• Generalizability and External Validation: As we traverse the landscape of our findings, we must encounter the constraints
of our domain, the borders that confine our insights to small corridors of relevance. Only through external validation,
across varied settings and myriad datasets, can we reveal the actual scope of our approaches.

6.4 Suggestions for Future Research:

Drawing upon the intricate tapestry woven by our study's discoveries and constraints, a myriad of pathways unfurls for prospective
exploration, presenting fertile ground to propel the realm of financial fraud detection into new frontiers through the lens of AI and
machine learning:

• Illuminating the Shadowed Realms of Imbalance: Future inquiries beckon towards the realm of crafting innovative
methodologies to navigate the labyrinth of imbalanced datasets in the pursuit of fraud detection excellence. Delving into
the realms of oversampling, undersampling, and the creation of synthetic data constructs promises to imbue our models
with resilience and adaptability, fostering their capacity to traverse the variegated landscapes of financial deceit.
• Unveiling the Enigma of Model Transparency: The quest for enlightenment in the realm of model interpretability emerges
as a paramount endeavor, casting light upon the enigmatic corridors of AI-driven fraud detection systems. Embarking
upon the odyssey of model-agnostic interpretability techniques, the dissection of feature importance, and the vivid
portrayal of visualization tools promises to unravel the mysteries shrouding the decision-making processes, fostering a
veritable sanctuary of transparency and trust.
• Navigating the Expanse of External Validation: The journey towards validation extends beyond the confines of our own
constructs, beckoning towards the exploration of external vistas spanning diverse datasets from the annals of multiple
financial entities. In the crucible of standardized benchmarks and evaluation metrics, the crucible of fairness is forged,
fostering a tapestry of collaboration and mutual growth within the fertile grounds of the research community.
• Embracing the Dawn of Technological Convergence: Casting our gaze towards the horizon, the confluence of emergent
technologies such as blockchain, federated learning, and differential privacy beckons, promising to fortify the bastions of
security and privacy enveloping financial transactions. Through the crucible of real-world scrutiny, the efficacy and
feasibility of these technological marvels are to be tested, paving the path towards practical applications in the unending
battle against the scourge of financial malfeasance.

By embarking upon these labyrinthine pathways of inquiry, we stand poised to push the boundaries of the status quo, charting a
course towards a future wherein the vanguard of financial fraud detection stands as a bastion of efficacy, transparency, and
resilience in the face of adversity.

Funding: This research received no external funding.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Orcid: 0000-0002-4189-2231
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of
their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers.

References
[1] Alghofaili, Y., A. Albattah and M. A. Rassam (2020). A financial fraud detection model based on LSTM deep learning technique. Journal of
Applied Security Research 15(4): 498-516.
[2] Ali, A., S. Abd Razak, S. H. Othman, T. A. E. Eisa, A. Al-Dhaqm, M. Nasser, T. Elhassan, H. Elshafie and A. Saif (2022). Financial fraud detection
based on machine learning: a systematic literature review. Applied Sciences 12(19): 9637.
[3] Alsuwailem, A. A. S., E. Salem and A. K. J. Saudagar (2023). Performance of different machine learning algorithms in detecting financial fraud.
Computational Economics 62(4): 1631-1667.
[4] Aslam, F., A. I. Hunjra, Z. Ftiti, W. Louhichi and T. Shams (2022). Insurance fraud detection: Evidence from artificial intelligence and machine
learning. Research in International Business and Finance 62: 101744.
[5] Awoyemi, J. O., A. O. Adetunmbi and S. A. Oluwadare (2017). Credit card fraud detection using machine learning techniques: A comparative
analysis. 2017 international conference on computing networking and informatics (ICCNI), IEEE.
[6] Baker, J. (2019). Using machine learning to detect financial fraud.
[7] Bao, Y., G. Hilary and B. Ke (2022). Artificial intelligence and fraud detection." Innovative Technology at the Interface of Finance and
OperationsI: 223-247.
[8] Chen, J. I.-Z. and K.-L. Lai (2021). Deep convolution neural network model for credit-card fraud detection and alert. Journal of Artificial
Intelligence and Capsule Networks 3(2): 101-112.
[9] Dayyabu, Y. Y., D. Arumugam and S. Balasingam (2023). The application of artificial intelligence techniques in credit card fraud detection: a
quantitative study. E3S Web of Conferences, EDP Sciences.
Page | 76
 JEFAS 6(1): 67-77

[10] Goodell, J. W., S. Kumar, W. M. Lim and D. Pattnaik (2021). Artificial intelligence and machine learning in finance: Identifying foundations,
themes, and research clusters from bibliometric analysis. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance 32: 100577.
[11] Maniraj, S., A. Saini, S. Ahmed and S. Sarkar (2019). Credit card fraud detection using machine learning and data science. International
Journal of Engineering Research 8(9): 110-115.
[12] Narasimha, B., C. V. Raghavendran, P. Rajyalakshmi, G. K. Reddy, M. Bhargavi and P. Naresh (2022). Cyber Defense in the Age of Artificial
Intelligence and Machine Learning for Financial Fraud Detection Application. IJEER 10(2): 87-92.
[13] Pumsirirat, A. and Y. Liu (2018). Credit card fraud detection using deep learning based on auto-encoder and restricted Boltzmann machine.
International Journal of advanced computer science and applications 9(1).
[14] Raghavan, P. and N. El Gayar (2019). Fraud detection using machine learning and deep learning. 2019 international conference on
computational intelligence and knowledge economy (ICCIKE), IEEE.
[15] Rahul, K., N. Seth and U. Dinesh Kumar (2018). Spotting earnings manipulation: using machine learning for financial fraud detection.
Artificial Intelligence XXXV: 38th SGAI International Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AI 2018, Cambridge, UK, December 11–13, 2018,
Proceedings 38, Springer.
[16] Rangineni, S. and D. Marupaka (2023). Analysis Of Data Engineering For Fraud Detection Using Machine Learning And Artificial Intelligence
Technologies. International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science 5(7): 2137-2146.
[17] Roseline, J. F., G. Naidu, V. S. Pandi, S. A. alias Rajasree and N. Mageswari (2022). "Autonomous credit card fraud detection using machine
learning approach☆. Computers and Electrical Engineering 102: 108132.
[18] Ryman-Tubb, N. F., P. Krause and W. Garn (2018). How Artificial Intelligence and machine learning research impacts payment card fraud
detection: A survey and industry benchmark. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence 76: 130-157.
[19] Sina, A. (2023). Open AI and its Impact on Fraud Detection in Financial Industry. Journal of Knowledge Learning and Science Technology ISSN:
2959-6386 (Online) 2(3): 263-281.
[20] Soviany, C. (2018). The benefits of using artificial intelligence in payment fraud detection: A case study. Journal of Payments Strategy &
Systems 12(2): 102-110.
[21] Stojanović, B., J. Božić, K. Hofer-Schmitz, K. Nahrgang, A. Weber, A. Badii, M. Sundaram, E. Jordan and J. Runevic (2021). Follow the trail:
Machine learning for fraud detection in Fintech applications. Sensors 21(5): 1594.
[22] Thennakoon, A., C. Bhagyani, S. Premadasa, S. Mihiranga and N. Kuruwitaarachchi (2019). Real-time credit card fraud detection using
machine learning. 2019 9th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence), IEEE.
[23] Tiwari, P., S. Mehta, N. Sakhuja, J. Kumar and A. K. Singh (2021). Credit card fraud detection using machine learning: a study. arXiv preprint
arXiv:2108.10005.
[24] Varmedja, D., M. Karanovic, S. Sladojevic, M. Arsenovic and A. Anderla (2019). Credit card fraud detection-machine learning methods. 2019
18th International Symposium INFOTEH-JAHORINA (INFOTEH), IEEE.
[25] Vesna, B. A. (2021). Challenges of financial risk management: AI applications. Management: Journal of Sustainable Business and Management
Solutions in Emerging Economies 26(3): 27-34.
[26] Yee, O. S., S. Sagadevan and N. H. A. H. Malim (2018). Credit card fraud detection using machine learning as data mining technique. Journal
of Telecommunication, Electronic and Computer Engineering (JTEC) 10(1-4): 23-27.

Page | 77