SEON, the command centre for immediate Fraud Prevention and AML Compliance, has unveiled AI Reality Check: 2026 Fraud & AML Leaders Report, the second iteration of its sector research, derived from a worldwide survey of 1,010 leaders in fraud, risk, and compliance spanning payments, fintech, financial services, retail, eCommerce, and gaming.

The figures reveal an unforeseen narrative: AI is ubiquitous, yet operations are not becoming easier to manage. Currently, 98% of organizations utilize AI in fraud and AML processes, with 95% expressing confidence in its effectiveness; meanwhile, headcount plans rose from 88% to 94% year-over-year, and 83% anticipate budget increases in 2026.

Complexity Is Surpassing Automation

AI has not lessened the workload — it has revealed the extent of work that has always existed. Fraud losses are increasingly approaching revenue growth, threats are advancing more rapidly, and disjointed systems restrict the true potential of AI at scale. Key year-over-year shift:​

Leadership’s confidence in their teams’ performance is lagging. The number of leaders who disagreed with the statement, “fraud losses are growing faster than revenue,”​ dropped by almost 40% from the previous year

Inside the Numbers:​

AI is baseline, not experimental​

• 98% already integrate AI into daily workflows (only 2% still planning)​
• 95% are confident AI can detect and prevent fraud (52% very confident)​
• Top use case: AI/ML for transaction monitoring (30%)​

Fraud and AML investment keeps climbing​

• 83% expect fraud/AML budgets to increase in 2026​
• 94% plan to add at least one full-time hire (up from 88% in 2025)​
• 85% plan to add a vendor, 49% plan to replace one​

Fragmentation is the bottleneck​

• 95% claim “some integration” between fraud and AML systems​
• Only 47% run fully integrated workflows; the rest rely on partial connections​
• 80% say getting a unified view of data is challenging​

For many, time-to-value remains slow​

Only 10% go live in under two weeks​
38% take 1–3 months, 24% take 4+ months​
When implementations run long, top impacts include increased costs (52%) and prolonged fraud exposure (47%)​

Teams are growing, not shrinking​

94% plan to increase headcount despite automation gains​
85% see AI agents as support/augmentation, not replacement (only 12% see eventual replacement)​

Top fraud threats reported:​

• Account takeovers: 26%
• Promo/discount abuse: 18%
• Return fraud: 18%​

“Fraud and financial crime were supposed to become more manageable as AI matured,” said Tamas Kadar, CEO and co-founder, SEON. “Instead, 2026 is the year leaders are confronting a more complicated reality. AI adoption is real, confidence is high, but the scale and pace of fraud — compounded by fragmented systems — continue to drive increased investment rather than reduced overhead. The bottleneck is no longer whether AI works. It’s everything around it: disconnected data, siloed teams, slow implementations. The organisations that pull ahead will be the ones that unify fraud and AML intelligence, shorten the distance between threats and controls, and treat integration as strategy, not plumbing.”​

Fast-Growing Companies Invest in Integration Early​

Organisations growing 51%+ are nearly twice as likely as slower peers to report that achieving unified visibility is “not very challenging.” They treat integration as infrastructure, not an IT project.​

What’s Next: From “Does AI Work?” to “Can We Trust It?”​

With adoption near-universal, the conversation is shifting to governance, explainability and accountability:​

• 78% say decentralised digital identity will become central to fraud/AML​
• 33% cite data privacy regulations (GDPR, CCPA) as the biggest external force shaping AML​
• 25% point to criminals’ advancing use of AI and obfuscation techniques​

The post Despite AI’s Rise, Fraud Teams Keep Growing — SEON 2026 Report appeared first on Eastern European Gaming | Global iGaming & Tech Intelligence Hub.

Reading Time: 4 minutes

Online gambling continues to thrive in Poland, despite the country’s strict regulatory framework. Virtual casinos and betting platforms still attract players with the promise of easy access and quick winnings. Yet, their operations would not be possible without the involvement of payment institutions that process transactions for entities operating outside the boundaries of the law. Behind the scenes lie not only questions about compliance with Poland’s Gambling Act, but also serious concerns about money laundering and the potential financing of criminal activity.

PSPs Legal Responsibility

The key question remains the legality of actions taken by payment institutions that handle transactions linked to illegal online gambling. Do they, even unintentionally, help such operations thrive? Under Polish law, payment service providers are required to monitor and limit high-risk transactions. In practice, this means that every deposit or withdrawal connected to unlicensed gambling activity should be treated as a red flag. Special attention is also given to transactions made through popular mobile payment systems such as BLIK. While BLIK itself is not a payment institution under Polish law, the banks and financial operators using it are and it is they who bear responsibility for preventing the flow of funds that may support illegal gambling activities.

Clear Legal Framework, Limited Excuses

Polish law leaves little room for speculation here. The register of domains used to offer illegal gambling, the ban on processing payments for unlicensed operators, and the penalties outlined in the Fiscal Penal Code and Criminal Code set clear boundaries of responsibility.

The Anti-Money Laundering Act (AML) and the EU Regulation 2023/1113 require payment institutions to actively monitor transactions, block suspicious transfers, and cut off risky relationships. Guidance issued by the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF/UKNF) and the National Risk Assessment, along with its sectoral annex, describes typical abuse schemes and makes it clear that payments directed toward online gambling should be treated as a major warning signal. In practice, this means that financial channels supporting illegal gambling must be identified and shut down before the funds return to players as so-called “winnings.”

And this principle is now being actively enforced. Recently, the Financial Supervision Authority (UKNF) went a step further, issuing a sector-wide warning urging payment service providers to block financial flows to unlicensed operators. In response, Polish payment providers have begun withdrawing support for illegal gambling sites and removing payment options such as BLIK from unlicensed platforms.

The Hardest to Detect: The Intermediary Role

The flow of funds into illegal online gambling can take many forms, depending on the relationships between the parties involved in the transaction. The most difficult to detect, however, is the scenario in which a payment institution acts only as an intermediary within a larger payment chain transferring money between other financial service providers without directly serving the payer or the recipient. Even in such cases, the institution is not exempt from its obligation to continuously monitor and analyse all transactions.

Depending on the type of payment, it should apply different verification methods, all aimed at determining whether executing a transfer on behalf of another provider could, in practice, end up funding entities that organize illegal online gambling. The institution must obtain information from the ordering provider about the recipient, determine whether it is engaged in gambling related activity, and verify its legal status. If red flags arise during the analysis such as missing data in the payment chain, a domain listed in the official register, or the absence of the website from the list of legal operators the transaction should be paused or rejected and properly escalated. This includes raising the risk level, notifying the relevant authorities, or even terminating cooperation. When dealing with correspondent relationships involving other institutions, including those based within the European Union, heightened caution is essential.

Grey Market Fuelled by Inaction

Illegal online gambling would not exist without the support of the payment system. Although the law clearly defines the obligations of financial institutions, in practice it is often these very institutions that knowingly or not enable the flow of money into illegal online gambling. This is why effective identification and blocking of such transactions is crucial, especially within complex payment chains where tracing the connections can be most difficult. Every transfer made in support of illegal online gambling represents not only a legal risk but also real support for the shadow economy that thrives on the lack of vigilance within the financial sector.

This article was supplied by:

The post Payments Under Scrutiny: Polish Example appeared first on European Gaming Industry News.