The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, in partnership with the Bank of Thailand, have launched a framework titled ‘Bangkok Bueprint’, which outlines key considerations for tackling cyber-enabled fraud in financial services.

The institutions said the launch was a response to the increasing sophisticated scams around the world which threaten consumer confidence and financial stability.

The framework was launched on the sidelines of the 2026 IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings in Bangkok, Thailand.

It seeks to guide policymakers, regulators, financial institutions and other stakeholders in identifying vulnerabilities and developing measures to prevent and respond to digital financial fraud.

Bangkok blueprint

According to the institutions, the growing scale and sophistication of cyber-enabled fraud pose a systemic policy challenge that requires coordinated action across the financial sector and beyond.

The blueprint defines cyber-enabled fraud as the use of digital technologies and psychological manipulation to obtain illicit gains through transactions authorised or unauthorised by victims.

The lenders noted that while digitalisation has improved efficiency and expanded access to financial services since the 2018 IMF–World Bank Bali Fintech Agenda, it has also increased the scale, speed and sophistication of fraud.

“Large-scale operations—often linked to transnational organized crime—are now generating losses significant enough to affect households and businesses and potentially undermine trust in the financial system,” the framework stated.

They warned that declining confidence in digital financial services could undermine the benefits of financial inclusion, resilience, job creation and economic growth.

12 key considerations

The Bangkok Blueprint outlines 12 key considerations organised around five pillars: establishing strategic and legal foundations; strengthening the fraud-mitigation cycle; leveraging existing risk-mitigation and enforcement frameworks; expanding domestic and cross-border cooperation; and promoting consumer protection and resilience.

National strategies and legal foundations

Under the first pillar, the institutions recommended that countries establish comprehensive national strategies for fraud-resilient digital finance, with clear objectives, accountability arrangements, designated leadership, adequate resources and monitoring mechanisms.

The second consideration called for sound legal, regulatory and supervisory frameworks that empower authorities to allocate liability, protect consumers, share information promptly, and freeze and recover fraud proceeds.

The document revealed that these frameworks should be proportionate to the risks and adaptable to changing fraud methods.

Prevention, detection and recovery

The second pillar contains four considerations focused on strengthening the fraud-mitigation cycle in order to fight cyber fraud.

The third consideration called for safeguards to be embedded in the design of digital financial services, ensuring that fraud prevention is accessible, proportionate and continuously adapted to emerging threats.

The fourth consideration recommended collaborative and adaptive fraud prevention, with financial institutions and other relevant stakeholders identifying vulnerabilities early and working together to disrupt fraudsters and their networks.

The fifth consideration called for a system-wide fraud-detection architecture combining monitoring by individual institutions with ecosystem-level surveillance.

According to the instructions, this should be supported by structured data sharing, enabling protocols and collaborative analytics.

The sixth recommended coordinated response and recovery mechanisms to contain fraud incidents quickly and limit their impact.

These should include preparedness, escalation planning, investigation, and standardised incident reporting across relevant institutions and authorities, the IMF and World Bank’s framework stated.

Cybersecurity, money laundering and law enforcement

The third pillar outlines three considerations for leveraging existing risk-mitigation and enforcement frameworks.

Under the third pillar, the seventh consideration called for stronger cybersecurity regulation, supervision and risk-management arrangements to protect financial service providers, infrastructure and users against cyber-enabled fraud.

The eighth recommended using existing anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism frameworks to strengthen fraud prevention and detection, deprive criminals of illicit gains and disrupt organised criminal networks.

The ninth consideration called for effective law enforcement, proportionate and dissuasive criminal sanctions, and the recovery of criminal proceeds to deter fraud and related money laundering.

The document added that publicising successful law enforcement actions can strengthen deterrence and demonstrate that offenders are being held accountable.

Domestic and international cooperation

The fourth pillar contains two considerations addressing cooperation within and across national borders in the combat targeted at cyber fraud around the global financial systems.

Here, the tenth consideration recommended systematic, risk-based collaboration between public and private sector stakeholders to address vulnerabilities and enable rapid action throughout the fraud-mitigation process.

The eleventh called for cross-border cooperation, coordination and information-sharing arrangements to prevent and mitigate fraud across jurisdictions.

READ ALSO: EFCC arraigns three for allegedly impersonating Tunde Ednut, ₦18.2 million fraud in Abuja

The institutions emphasised that fraud often originates outside the financial sector, including on social media, digital platforms, e-commerce websites and telecommunications networks.

The framework identified central banks, financial regulators, data protection authorities, finance ministries, financial intelligence units, law enforcement agencies, telecommunications providers, digital platforms and financial infrastructures as important participants in this coordinated response.

Consumer protection and awareness

The twelfth and final consideration focused on strengthening consumer protection, empowerment and awareness in the fight against cyber fraud.

The blueprint recommended that existing financial consumer protection frameworks be strengthened to address emerging fraud risks.

It also called for consumers to understand the threats they face, their rights and protections, and the liability, redress and remediation arrangements available when fraud occurs.

The institutions said national authorities should adapt the recommendations to their domestic circumstances, considering differences in legal and regulatory frameworks, institutional capacity, fraud risks and the structure of digital financial ecosystems.

The IMF and World Bank clarified that the Bangkok Blueprint is a non-prescriptive framework and does not constitute formal policy guidance from either institution.

For decades, the unwritten rule of venture capital was that a firm doesn’t back two companies that compete head-on. But speaking at TechCrunch Disrupt earlier this week, the partners of Benchmark readily acknowledged that the AI boom is straining that rule.

It’s been on the verge of snapping for some time. The towering AI labs OpenAI and Anthropic share dozens of the same investors at this point. Then, at the end of September, Factory, a startup that builds an AI agent to write software, said it was firing board observer and adviser Chris Degnan for “unethical conduct involving Cognition,” its direct rival and the maker of the Devin coding agent. Factory’s CEO alleged Degnan had discussed a job at Cognition while privy to Factory’s board-level discussions. Degnan said he had already resigned and denied sharing anything confidential. Soon after, he announced he was joining Cognition as chief revenue officer. Powerhouse investor Vinod Khosla sided with Degnan on X, blasting Factory’s CEO and calling the company “a struggling second tier competitor.” Khosla Ventures backs both companies.

Even Benchmark, a firm whose reputation rests on 10-to-15-year partnerships with founders at the earliest stage, said the old rule can no longer be counted on. Asked at Disrupt whether the pact against backing rivals still holds as portfolio companies expand into each other’s territory, its partners described the conflicts as a matter of necessity, not preference.

“The harsh reality of this world is every company is evolving very quickly,” said Eric Vishria. Companies pivot and change, he said, and “you are going to get conflicts, and that’s just the reality of the current dynamic.”

Vishria said Benchmark stays committed to each founder and keeps what it learns confidential, and he downplayed how much a VC could pass along anyway: “We are not product or technology experts.” Seemingly referring to the Factory-Cognition dispute, he said Benchmark has been fortunate not to land in “that type of insane direct conflict.” Exclusivity, he said, remains “really important” at the very early stage Benchmark favors. “But things are evolving. There’s no doubt about that.”

Chetan Puttagunta said AI is accelerating the problem. As the cost of building software “effectively goes to zero,” he said, founders are “incredibly ambitious.” Because they now see a “surface area” and want to claim all of it, he continued, “[i]t’s probably going to happen more, where you start to run into each other.”

He drew a line between a direct competitor at the outset, which he called “an easy answer,” and a portfolio company that expands into another’s turf over time. “That happens,” he said.

Peter Fenton called the issue “kryptonite” and the firm’s toughest problem. He described a spectrum of how investors relate to their companies. At one end is the co-founder, who would never work on a competing company. At the other is the public-market stock picker, who can own several rivals because he is merely allocating capital, not shaping any of them. Benchmark sits nearer the co-founder end, Fenton said, and treats transparency as a golden rule. “There shouldn’t be the surprise after the fact.” If a conflict does emerge, a founder should never feel shortchanged, he added.

Benchmark isn’t declaring the pact dead. At the same time, when a firm that built its name on loyalty says conflicts are coming, founders might rightly wonder who else will be this candid.