Representing fraud scenarios

8.1 Representing fraud scenarios

In a fraud scenario, we mark some actors as trusted. All actors have agreed on the value model, but non-trusted actors may do things that violate the value model. Trusted actors always conform to the value model.

Given a selection of trusted actors, a fraud scenario contains three elements not present in a normal market scenario (figure 8.2):

Absent transfers, represented by a dashed transfer. For example, a non-trusted actor may not pay for a value object received.
Hidden transfers, represented by a dotted transfer. For example, non-trusted actors may engage in a value transfer that is not in the value model. The trusted actors are not aware of these transfers.
Collusions, represented by a fat border. Two or more actors may collude, meaning that there revenue flows are added and then split according to a formula that is advantageous for all of them.

In the fraud scenario of figure 8.2, the three fraudulent activities are present.. In this scenario, Provider A is trusted. The model has been quantified in such a way that User B now has a revenue-sharing subscription with Provider B, in which User B receives a small share of the revenue that Provider B gets from the interconnection fee. This is unknown to Provider A. User B colludes with User A by by sharing the revenue that it receives from Provider B.

With a flat-rate subscription, User A can call people for a flat rate per month, within a fair use policy (e.g. at most 500 calls per month). In our scenario, User A calls User B the maximum number of times within its fair use restriction and colludes with User B in sharing the revenue that User B receives from Provider B. On top of that, User A does not pay Provider A for the flat rate subscription.

Figure 8.2:A fraud scenario for the flat rate telecom model. Provider A is trusted. Invisible for Provider A, User B has a revenue-sharing subscription with Provider B.