Traceable LLM Reasoning for Fake-Order Fraud Detection

Fraud detection in payment, e-commerce, and telecommunications systems requires accuracy at the individual level, robustness under severe class imbalance, and ease of understanding for risk managers. Existing methods fall at least one of these requirements: automated machine learning systems search a fixed numerical space without semantic awareness of the dataset; graph neural network-based methods require pre-defined relational graphs and remain opaque at the individual-decision level; and the design of general-purpose large language model (LLM) agents does not consider the recall and precision constraints specific to real-world fraud detection. In this paper, we propose SAGE, the first end-to-end LLM-driven multi-agent framework for fraud detection. SAGE coordinates three dedicated agents that make decisions based on a six-layer Data Diagnostic Tree (DDT) and a Markov decision process guided by natural-language gradients, automatically optimizing the model under a fraud-specific reward. On five fraud datasets and five LLM backbones, SAGE wins $96.00\%$ of method--dataset comparisons and improves F1 by an average of $40.86\%$ over baselines. The code is available at https://github.com/yichenC1c/SAGE.

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.

Large language models trained on human feedback may suppress fraud warnings when investors arrive already persuaded of a fraudulent opportunity. We tested this in a preregistered experiment across seven leading LLMs and twelve investment scenarios covering legitimate, high-risk, and objectively fraudulent opportunities, combining 3,360 AI advisory conversations with a 1,201-participant human benchmark. Contrary to predictions, motivated investor framing did not suppress AI fraud warnings; if anything, it marginally increased them. Endorsement reversal occurred in fewer than 3 in 1,000 observations. Human advisors endorsed fraudulent investments at baseline rates of 13-14%, versus 0% across all LLMs, and suppressed warnings under pressure at two to four times the AI rate. AI systems currently provide more consistent fraud warnings than lay humans in an identical advisory role.