When Can Fraud Operations Authorize Automation? A Decision-Support Framework for Fresh Audit Evidence and Review Workload

Fairness audits are increasingly mandated in high-stakes applications such as hiring, lending, and automated decision-making. Recent work has established fundamental impossibility results for black-box fairness auditing, showing that sufficiently expressive models can evade any auditing strategy. We complement these results by quantifying the extent of unavoidable post-audit manipulation under finite audit resources. We formulate fairness auditing as a min-max optimization between a computationally unbounded company and a budget-constrained auditor. We study two auditing regimes: (i) a budgeted auditor that certifies fairness using a fixed-size audit set, and (ii) a budgeted α-tolerant auditor that additionally requires the audit set to estimate the fairness of the certified model within an α approximation. For both settings, we derive explicit lower bounds on the worst-case post-audit demographic parity deviation as functions of the audit budget, group imbalance, and fairness tolerance. Finally, we empirically illustrate these theoretical limits using simple audit-set construction heuristics with linear and neural network classifiers. Our results demonstrate that increasing audit resources reduces, but does not eliminate, the scope for post-audit manipulation, highlighting fundamental limitations of finite-budget fairness certification.

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.