Blockchain-Linked Auditable Decision Management for Telecom/IoT Fraud-Control Requests

In enterprise fraud detection, model accuracy alone is insufficient when insiders can tamper with audit logs or bypass approval workflows. Real-world incidents show that fraud often persists not because detection algorithms fail, but because the audit trail itself is controllable by privileged operators. This exposes a fundamental trust gap: who audits the auditor? We present a tamper-evident fraud detection system that anchors both ML predictions and workflow execution to an immutable blockchain ledger. Rather than using blockchain as passive storage, we enforce the entire approval process through smart contracts, ensuring that every transaction, prediction, and explanation is atomically recorded and cannot be retroactively modified. Our detection module achieves competitive accuracy (F1 = 0.895, PR-AUC = 0.974) while providing cryptographically verifiable decision trails that support regulatory auditability requirements (e.g., GDPR Article 22). System evaluation shows sub-25 ms inference latency and economically viable deployment on Layer-2 networks at under $0.01 per transaction (validated against PolygonScan data), supporting enterprise-scale workloads of 10,000+ monthly payments.

LLMs are now proposed for fraud detection, scam investigation, content moderation, and other trust-and-safety workflows. Much of the public literature still evaluates them as models, with less attention to their behavior as components in operational pipelines. This creates a practical evidence question: what would justify placing an LLM inside a live workflow with latency, cost, escalation, human-review, and adversarial-risk constraints? We address this question through a fraud-first survey of deployment evidence. We code 49 operationally relevant sources on LLM use in fraud detection, investigation support, content moderation, and cross-cutting robustness (18 fraud, 14 moderation, 17 cross-cutting), supplemented by 15 contextual references that establish the survey boundaries. These sources include systems, benchmarks, frameworks, and deployment-relevant surveys, not 49 production deployments. The main finding is an evidence imbalance. Fraud supplies the largest task-specific portion of the coded corpus. The moderation papers, however, include more explicit public evidence on latency, cost, governance, and fairness. Among the 18 fraud and investigation sources, none report clean per-decision latency, per-decision dollar cost, or calibration evidence; most report offline task performance, retrieval gains, or case-study accuracy instead. The survey contributes a role-and-evidence organizing frame, FORTE, for locating LLMs as classifiers, retrieval interfaces, explanation generators, reviewer assistants, agents, feature extractors, or escalation components. It also contributes a minimum deployment-evidence checklist covering latency budget, cost per decision, decision threshold, explanation integrity, and adversarial pressure. The resulting agenda identifies studies needed to support deployment claims for LLM-based fraud and trust-and-safety work.

Fraud detection and anti-money-laundering (AML) compliance are high-value domains for large language models (LLMs), but their serving requirements differ sharply from generic chat workloads. Compliance prompts are often prefix-heavy, schema-constrained, and evidence-rich, combining reusable policy instructions, risk taxonomies, transaction or document context, and short structured outputs such as JSON labels or risk factors. These properties make prefix reuse, KV-cache efficiency, runtime tuning, model orchestration, and output validation first-order systems concerns. This paper introduces a workload-aware LLMOps stack for fraud and AML workloads using self-hosted open-weight models such as Meta Llama and Alibaba Qwen. The stack combines vLLM-style runtime tuning, PagedAttention, Automatic Prefix Caching, multi-adapter serving, adapter and prompt-length-aware batching, sleep/wake lifecycle management, speculative decoding, and optional prefill/decode disaggregation. To avoid exposing institution-specific data, the reproducibility track converts public synthetic AML datasets, including IBM AML and SAML-D, into prefix-heavy compliance prompts with reusable policy text, transaction evidence, typology definitions, and schema-constrained outputs. We also incorporate an LLM-as-judge quality gate using deterministic compliance checks, reference metrics, expert-adjudicated calibration data where available, and multi-judge rubric scoring. Across public-synthetic AML workloads and controlled serving benchmarks, workload-aware tuning improved throughput from 612-650 to 3,600 requests/hour, reduced P99 latency from 31-38 seconds to 6.4-8.7 seconds, and increased GPU utilization from 12% to 78%. These results show that regulated LLM performance is a workload-design, serving-optimization, and quality-gating problem, not only a model-selection problem.