Sector: Cybersecurity / BFSI / Technology
Core themes: AI misuse, fraud risk, identity verification failures, regulatory response
Why AI Deepfake Banking Scams are a “case” and not just a headline
By late 2025, regulators, banks, and cybersecurity bodies across multiple jurisdictions were openly warning that AI-generated deepfakes had shifted from emerging threat to mainstream fraud vector.
Several strands of evidence point to a sharp acceleration in AI Deepfake Banking Scams:
- Deloitte reported a ~700% surge in deepfake incidents targeting the financial sector by 2024–early 2025.
- The Entrust Cybersecurity Institute noted that in 2024, a deepfake attack occurred somewhere in the world roughly every five minutes, and digital document forgeries rose 244% year-on-year.
- A summary of the FBI’s 2024 Internet Crime Report (cited in mid-2025 analysis) recorded US$2.6 billion in global losses from Business Email Compromise (BEC) and vishing, and observed that deepfake attacks were doubling annually since 2022.
At the same time, UK regulators and fraud bodies were explicitly flagging AI and deepfakes as top concerns for banks:
- The UK fraud-prevention body Cifas told the Financial Times in early 2024 that UK banks were already being hit by deepfake-based scams, and needed to prepare for a “wave” of such attacks.
- Commentary in FT in 2024 identified AI-generated video and audio as a next-generation driver of financial scams, warning that traditional fraud controls were unprepared.
By Oct–Nov 2025, this wasn’t hypothetical. We had a clear pattern of real, high-value attacks on corporates and financial institutions, coupled with formal warnings from regulators and cyber agencies about AI deepfake banking scams.
How AI deepfake banking scams actually work
From cases and incident analyses, the typical AI deepfake banking scam attack chain looks like this:
- Reconnaissance & Data Harvesting
- Public speeches, YouTube talks, earnings calls, LinkedIn videos, or media interviews provide clean voice and facial samples of CEOs, CFOs, and other senior executives.
- Stolen KYC data, leaked customer details, and breached email records enrich the profile.
- Synthetic Identity Creation
- Attackers feed a few seconds to a few minutes of audio into voice-cloning tools, many of which are now freely or cheaply available.
- They then use deepfake video tools to sync the cloned voice with realistic facial movements or create full synthetic video calls.
- Social-Engineering Delivery
- For retail victims: deepfake voice calls of “family members” or “bank officials” claiming emergencies or compliance checks.
- For corporates: deepfake video calls or voice notes impersonating senior management, instructing urgent payments, changes in beneficiary accounts, or sharing of OTPs and access codes.
- Authorized Push Payments & Account Takeover
- Unlike classic hacking, these scams often rely on customers or staff willingly initiating the transaction, which complicates liability and recovery.
- Mule accounts and crypto channels quickly layer funds.
- Forensic Difficulty
- Many victims realize only after the event that the call or video was synthetic.
- Detecting deepfakes in real time remains technically challenging for most banks.
Real-world incidents that anchor this AI Deepfake Banking Scams trend
3.1 The Arup US$25 million deepfake video conference fraud (Hong Kong, 2024)
In May 2024, the Financial Times and other outlets reported that UK engineering group Arup lost US$25 million in Hong Kong after staff were tricked into a deepfake video conference.
- Attackers created a convincing video call where multiple “participants”, including what appeared to be the CFO, joined a meeting.
- The CFO’s image and voice were synthetically generated.
- Staff were instructed to make a series of urgent transfers to overseas bank accounts for a supposed confidential deal.
- The transfers were executed because the visual and audio cues seemed legitimate.
This remains one of the highest-value publicly reported deepfake-enabled corporate frauds and is widely cited in financial-sector briefings.
3.2 The Singapore US$499,000 deepfake Zoom scam (2025)
A detailed 2025 case study describes a Singapore-based multinational whose finance director received a Zoom call supposedly from the group CFO.
- Deepfake technology was used to replicate the CFO’s appearance and voice.
- The fraudster, posing as the CFO, requested an urgent US$499,000 transfer for a confidential acquisition.
- Background details and prior email spoofing were used to make the instruction credible.
- The funds were wired before the fraud was discovered.
This case is particularly relevant to Asia-Pacific BFSI and corporates, showing that such attacks are no longer limited to US/Europe.
3.3 Earlier CEO voice-clone fraud (Europe, 2019)
A widely cited 2019 case saw scammers use a voice deepfake of a CEO to instruct a subordinate to transfer US$243,000 to an overseas account.
- This is often considered the first well-documented deepfake voice fraud against a business.
- It proved that even relatively primitive voice-cloning tools could defeat human judgement on the phone.
This incident is still used in training materials and underlines how fast risk has evolved between 2019 and 2025.
3.4 Regulatory and threat-intelligence signals by late 2025
By late 2025, multiple organizations were explicitly warning about AI-driven impersonation and deepfake scams:
- The UK’s National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) 2025 Annual Review described a record number of nationally significant cyber incidents, and highlighted the growing sophistication of criminal campaigns, including those using advanced social engineering.
- A report cited by analysts noted that deepfake attacks in 2024 were occurring at a rate of one every five minutes worldwide, and that AI-generated digital forgeries had increased by 244% year-on-year.
- AI Deepfake Banking Scams
While these are not all “bank account hacks” in the traditional sense, they clearly show that banks, payment firms, and corporates had become prime targets for AI-enabled impersonation.
Quantifying the impact of AI Deepfake Banking Scams: financial, operational, and compliance dimensions
4.1 Financial losses
Reliable, global, deepfake-only loss figures are still emerging, but we can infer scale from related data:
- The FBI’s 2024 Internet Crime data (as summarized by security analysts) reports US$2.6 billion in global losses from BEC and vishing, categories where deepfakes are increasingly used as enablers.
- Individual cases like Arup’s US$25 million loss and the US$499k Singapore case show that one successful attack can be as large as a mid-sized corporate credit exposure.
For banks and large payment firms, even when they are not the direct victim, customer losses often convert into claims, disputes or reputational cost, and in some jurisdictions, into actual reimbursement obligations.
4.2 Operational & fraud-management impact
- Fraud and cyber teams face higher alert volumes and more complex investigations because many interactions look legitimate to both humans and existing systems.
- Call centers and relationship managers must handle more “was this really you?” queries post-incident.
- Banks must re-tool internal workflows that rely on voice-based instructions (for example, dealing rooms, private banking, treasury confirmations).
4.3 Compliance, legal and regulatory risk
Regulators have started to fold AI-enabled scams into their supervisory and enforcement lens:
- UK regulators have explicitly warned financial firms to boost protections against AI-based scams and deepfakes, noting these as top emerging threats.
- Guidance from bodies like FINRA (US) and thematic AML/fraud enforcement analyses for 2025 stress the need for proactive controls against new forms of impersonation and social engineering.
Banks that continue relying on weak authentication or do not update fraud controls risk being accused of failing to take reasonable steps given the now well-publicized nature of the threat.
Root cause analysis of AI Deepfake Banking Scams: why controls failed
Across cases and reports, several root causes consistently appear:
- Over-reliance on human judgement
- Staff are trained to “trust” a familiar voice or face on video, especially under time pressure and seniority bias.
- Deepfakes exploit authority and urgency, classic social-engineering levers.
- Voice-only or knowledge-based authentication
- Many high-value approvals still depend on voice confirmation or answering static security questions, which can be bypassed if attackers already hold leaked personal data.
- Fragmented fraud and cyber functions
- Some organizations treat deepfake scams as “fraud” while others see them as “cyber”, leading to gaps in ownership, tooling, and response.
- Lack of AI-aware detection tools
- Legacy fraud systems are not designed to spot synthetic audio/video anomalies, liveness failures, or unusual device/behavior patterns accompanying deepfake contact.
- Low customer and employee awareness
- Many victims have never been explicitly warned that a highly realistic video or voice of their boss / bank / relative might be fake.
- Simple practices like out-of-band verification (calling back on a known number) aren’t embedded as reflex actions.
Key risk management lessons for banks and financial institutions
6.1 Redesign identity verification and authentication
- Never rely on voice alone for high-risk activities (payment instructions, password resets, card limit changes).
- Enforce multi-factor authentication (MFA) combining:
- Something you know (PIN/password)
- Something you have (token/app/device)
- Something you are (behavioral or physical biometrics, with anti-spoofing).
- For corporate banking and treasury, use dual-control, secure portals, and avoid ad-hoc approvals over email, chat or consumer video apps.
6.2 Strengthen controls around payment authorization (especially APP fraud)
- Implement step-up authentication for high-value or unusual payments, even if initiated by the customer.
- Use behavioral analytics to flag anomalous transaction patterns or device locations.
- Introduce “confirmation of payee” and warning screens clearly explaining deepfake / impersonation risks.
6.3 Embed AI-specific fraud detection
- Deploy or integrate deepfake-detection engines that analyze audio/video streams for synthetic artefacts (where privacy and law allow).
- Enhance device fingerprinting, IP reputation, and behavioral biometrics so that even if the face/voice is spoofed, the surrounding signals look suspicious.
- Continuously retrain fraud models with new examples of AI-enabled scams.
6.4 Update governance, policies and training
- Formally recognize AI-enabled impersonation as a distinct risk in ERM and fraud risk registers.
- Update policies so that no employee should act on urgent fund transfer instructions received solely via voice/video – a second channel or internal workflow must always confirm.
- Train staff and customers with realistic examples, including cases like Arup and the Singapore Zoom scam, so they internalize that “seeing/hearing is not believing”.
6.5 Collaborate with regulators and industry bodies
- Participate in information-sharing initiatives on new deepfake typologies.
- Engage with guidance under frameworks like the NIST AI Risk Management Framework (AI RMF), which emphasizes managing unintended consequences and adversarial misuse of AI.
- Align biometric and identity solutions with standards such as ISO 30107 (Presentation Attack Detection) where relevant.
Mapping to frameworks and standards
| Framework / Standard | Relevance to deepfake banking scams |
| NIST AI RMF | Governance of AI risks, including misuse and adversarial attacks on/with AI. |
| NIST CSF | Overall cyber and fraud resilience; helps integrate deepfake threat into identify/protect/detect/respond/recover functions. |
| ISO 27001 | Information security management, including access control, awareness and incident response. |
| ISO 30107 | Guidance on defending biometric systems against spoofing (relevant to facial/voice recognition). |
| AML / fraud regulations (FCA, FINRA, RBI etc.) | Emphasis on robust customer authentication, monitoring, and protection against evolving scams. |
Practical takeaways for CROs, CISOs and Boards from AI Deepfake Banking Scams
- Treat AI-enabled impersonation as “here and now”, not emerging. The combination of Deloitte’s 700% figure and Entrust’s “attack every five minutes” signals a current, not future, risk.
- Review all processes where “a trusted voice or face” is treated as proof of identity – especially in corporate and private banking.
- Mandate out-of-band verification for large or unusual transfers, even if it feels inconvenient to senior executives.
- Invest in AI-aware detection and analytics, not just classic rules engines.
- Embed this risk in training and culture so staff are psychologically prepared to challenge even realistic-looking instructions.
- Monitor legal and regulatory developments – expectations around liability in AI-enabled APP fraud are likely to tighten.
Explore AI Risk Management courses offered by Smart Online Course in association with RMAI and build your expertise in preventing and handling AI Deepfake Banking Scams.
Related courses: