Fighting Fraud Without Borders: Cross-Regional Collaboration in Latin America and Beyond

Blog · September 21, 2026

The session brought together representatives from the financial sector, consumer protection organizations, technology and payment companies, fraud prevention specialists, and civil society organizations from Latin America and North America. The discussion focused on identifying the conditions required to strengthen cross-regional collaboration against digital scams, with particular attention to prevention, consumer protection, and response mechanisms.

One of the main themes was the need to reduce fragmentation across teams, institutions, and sectors. Fraud prevention, cybersecurity, anti-money laundering, telecommunications, digital platforms, and public authorities often address different parts of the same problem, but do not always operate through coordinated information-sharing arrangements. Drawing on the experience of the Mexico Chapter, the discussion highlighted the importance of developing a shared understanding of the fraud chain and supporting this work with research and awareness initiatives that explain more clearly how scams operate and what protective measures people can take.

Consumer protection became particularly relevant when examining the factors that facilitate or discourage reporting. Mexico presented its experience coordinating an interinstitutional response to potential fraud associated with the FIFA World Cup 2026, including the monitoring of platforms, social media, and online marketplaces. Participants noted that a substantial proportion of digital fraud goes unreported and linked this to limited confidence that reporting to the relevant institutions will produce an effective response. The discussion emphasized the need to combine coordination among public authorities, the private sector, and financial institutions with consumer education and guidance.

From this point, the discussion expanded the meaning of prevention. Technological controls and data sharing were identified as important parts of the response, but protection also depends on people’s ability to recognize warning signs, understand how different forms of deception operate, and know how to respond to a suspicious situation.

Communication was identified as a functional component of an anti-fraud strategy. Participants emphasized the importance of developing clear, accessible, and timely messages that reduce confusion and support consumer decision-making. Prevention was understood not only as the delivery of information, but also as the capacity to guide specific actions before, during, and after a potential scam.

The consumer experience when reporting a scam was another central topic. Participants observed that multiple channels, institutions, and procedures can create confusion and delays. Consumer organizations proposed exploring one-stop shop models that would provide people with a clear point of entry, regardless of whether the subsequent response involves several public authorities or private organizations.

The discussion also addressed interface design, signposting, and user experience. The visibility of reporting channels, the simplicity of instructions, and the use of understandable language can influence whether a person acts quickly. Participants also noted that low reporting rates may be associated not only with shame, but also with uncertainty about where to report and what steps to take.

This identified a specific role for prevention and consumer protection campaigns. Such campaigns can explain different types of fraud, warn people about signs of manipulation, reinforce verification practices, and provide guidance on what to do when fraud is suspected or has already occurred. Their value lies in translating a complex problem into concrete and understandable decisions for consumers.

The conversation connected prevention with fund recovery. Participants noted that prevention can never eliminate risk completely and that, once fraud has occurred, the consumer’s primary concern becomes the possibility of recovering their money. They also observed that the belief that reporting will not lead to any action can discourage people from doing so, affecting both the victim and the generation of information needed to identify patterns and prevent further cases.

Malaysia’s experience was presented as a reference point to illustrate the relationship between reporting speed and fund recovery. According to information shared during the session, the implementation of a national reporting and information-sharing system reportedly produced a significant increase in recovery rates, with considerably better outcomes in cases reported within the first few minutes. The discussion therefore identified time as a critical variable in the anti-fraud response.

Post-incident communication was also considered relevant. People need to understand what to do immediately after detecting a scam, which reporting channel to use, and why reporting quickly can help limit the damage. Participants also warned that a fragmented reporting experience can increase people’s vulnerability and may even create conditions for revictimization.

The session further established that responsibility for reconstructing a scam cannot fall solely on the consumer. The information supplied by individuals is often incomplete and must be combined with technical data held by financial institutions, digital platforms, telecommunications companies, and other private-sector organizations. Integrating these sources was identified as a necessary condition for improving detection, investigation, and response capabilities.

In summary, the discussion showed that consumer protection requires the integration of technological capabilities, interinstitutional collaboration mechanisms, and communication strategies focused on prevention and timely reporting. Awareness campaigns were recognized as part of this effort because they can reduce information asymmetries, clarify available courses of action, and strengthen public confidence in response mechanisms.

Источник: Blog