Assess whether to refer to law enforcement or keep civil (1948da)

SITUATION After a new device from a different metro on a 2am login, first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack is what payments-risk officer can touch in an ACH originating credit union. Fraud Detection will live with To refer to law enforcement versus Keep civil on this Payments Fraud file.

DECISION Payments-risk officer in an ACH originating credit union must choose To refer to law enforcement / Keep civil using first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack after a new device from a different metro on a 2am login.

HYPOTHESES TO TEST 1. Authorize To refer to law enforcement now; first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack already has the discriminator after a new device from a different metro on a 2am login. 2. Keep Keep civil in force until first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack is completed after a new device from a different metro on a 2am login for payments-risk officer. 3. Treat first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack as To refer to law enforcement because both readings appear after a new device from a different metro on a 2am login. 4. Refuse a Fraud Detection close: payments-risk officer does not have the decision to refer to law turns on in first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack.

ANALYSIS REQUIRED 1. Check mule or round-trip markers in first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack. 2. Map typology and hold authority payments-risk officer actually has in an ACH originating credit union. 3. Trace funds, counterparties, and reversals in first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack through the window opened by a new device from a different metro on a 2am login. 4. For this Fraud Detection Payments Fraud file, read first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack against a new device from a different metro on a 2am login and write the one fact that would move to refer to law for payments-risk officer.

RECOMMENDATION Choose To refer to law enforcement / Keep civil on this Fraud Detection / Payments Fraud packet (first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack after a new device from a different metro on a 2am login). The follow-on Payments Fraud action is what payments-risk officer does next: implement the option, assign an owner, and log the missing fact.

COMMAND RETURNS - Bottom-line Fraud Detection option on to refer to law, then the evidence in first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack, then the action for payments-risk officer - Hypothesis scorecard against first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack: supported / rejected / untestable - Missing page in first-party friendly-fraud dispute pack after a new device from a different metro on a 2am login, if any - Regulatory or exam hook Payments Fraud would cite