cs.LGApr 14, 2026

A Regulatory Governance Framework for AI-Driven Financial Fraud Detection in U.S. Banking: Integrating OCC, SR 11-7, CFPB, and FinCEN Compliance Requirements for Model Development, Validation, and Monitoring Lifecycles

Authors: Mohammad Nasir Uddin

Organizations: Westcliff University, Irvine, California, USA

Abstract

U.S. financial institutions deploying AI-based fraud detection face a fragmented compliance landscape spanning four regulatory frameworks -- OCC Bulletin 2011-12, SR 11-7, the CFPB AI circular, and FinCEN BSA/SAR requirements -- with no integrated governance life cycle connecting these requirements to model development, validation, and monitoring practice. This paper presents the Regulatory Governance Framework for AI-Driven Financial Fraud Detection (RGF-AFFD), a three-tier governance architecture empirically anchored in a multi-study empirical program. Using the IEEE-CIS dataset (590,540 transactions) and ULB benchmark (284,807 transactions), we benchmark six architectures including an LSTM+XGBoost ensemble, and conduct ablation, temporal drift, SHAP interpretability, and BISG fairness analyses. The LSTM+XGBoost ensemble achieves ROC-AUC of 0.9289 (F1: 0.6360) with a benefit-cost ratio of 6:1. XGBoost demonstrates the strongest temporal stability (delta-AUC = -0.0017 versus -0.0626 for LSTM). The RDT-FG Regulatory Digital Twin meta-model translates metrics into four regulator-specific health scores and a composite Regulatory Fitness Index for continuous compliance monitoring. The RGF-AFFD is the first integrated deployment blueprint to simultaneously satisfy OCC, SR 11-7, CFPB, and FinCEN requirements, supported by a community bank implementation vignette and four evidence-based policy recommendations.

Explore similar work

Apr 14, 2026

Shapley Value-Guided Adaptive Ensemble Learning for Explainable Financial Fraud Detection with U.S. Regulatory Compliance Validation

Financial crime costs U.S. institutions over $32 billion each year. Although AI tools for fraud detection have become more advanced, their use in real-world systems still faces a major obstacle: many of these models operate as black boxes that cannot provide the transparent, auditable explanations required by regulations such as OCC Bulletin 2011-12 and Federal Reserve SR 11-7. This study makes three main contributions. First, it offers a thorough evaluation of explanation quality across faithfulness (sufficiency and comprehensiveness at k=5, 10, and 15) and stability (Kendall's W across 30 bootstrap samples). XGBoost paired with TreeExplainer achieves near-perfect stability (W=0.9912), while LSTM with DeepExplainer shows weak results (W=0.4962). Second, the paper introduces the SHAP-Guided Adaptive Ensemble (SGAE), which dynamically adjusts per-transaction ensemble weights based on SHAP attribution agreement, achieving the highest AUC-ROC among all tested models (0.8837 held-out; 0.9245 cross-validation). Third, a complete three-architecture evaluation of LSTM, Transformer, and GNN-GraphSAGE on the full 590,540-transaction IEEE-CIS dataset is provided, with GNN-GraphSAGE achieving AUC-ROC 0.9248 and F1=0.6013. All results are mapped directly to OCC, SR 11-7, and BSA-AML regulatory compliance requirements.
May 28, 2026

FinGuard: Detecting Financial Regulatory Non-Compliance in LLM Interactions

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in financial services, a single non-compliant interaction can expose institutions to regulatory penalties and direct consumer harm. Existing guard models are built around general harm taxonomies and overlook violations grounded in specific financial regulations. We address this gap with a regulation-driven pipeline that operates directly on regulatory documents, inducing a financial compliance risk taxonomy and synthesizing grounded training data without any predefined violation categories. Instantiating the pipeline on Chinese financial regulations, we release FinGuard-Bench, to our knowledge the first benchmark for financial regulatory compliance detection, with expert-annotated labels at both the query and response levels. We further train FinGuard, a financial compliance detection model built on Qwen3-8B and trained on the regulation-grounded data via supervised fine-tuning and self-play reinforcement learning. On FinGuard-Bench, FinGuard substantially outperforms all baselines, including dedicated guard models and much larger general-purpose LLMs such as Qwen3.5-397B-A17B and GPT-5.1. Furthermore, FinGuard also preserves general safety capabilities and adapts to unseen institution-specific policies using policy documents alone. We will publicly release the code, prompts, and resources used in this work on GitHub.
Sep 23, 2026

Compliant with Local Controls, Collectively Discriminatory. A Governance Architecture for Multi-Agent AI in Regulated Finance

Financial institutions are beginning to deploy agentic workflows in credit, fraud, collections, compliance, and operational control. Governance remains largely component-centric: each model or agent is specified, tested, authorized, and monitored locally. That is insufficient when institutional risk arises from the joint behavior of many locally acceptable components. We call this gap constitutional non-compositionality: local compliance checks need not compose into acceptable collective outcomes such as bounded disparate impact, market integrity, or traceable accountability. We propose ARIA as a finance-specific reference architecture and falsifiable research agenda for agent-population governance. It organizes six capabilities across normative-accountability, execution-control, and assurance-learning planes: policy specification, population-level observed-versus-expected behavior monitoring (M2), bounded authority, runtime containment, adaptive policy change, and preserved human oversight competence. Two simulations illustrate shared-signal thin-file exclusion under local controls and earlier warning from observed-versus-expected distributional monitoring in a constructed drift regime. The contribution maps these controls to fair-lending, EU AI Act, model-risk, and conduct-supervision evidence needs, and closes with a validation agenda rather than a production-effectiveness claim.