Martín Perucca: “Preventing Fraud Enhances an Organization’s Value Proposition”

Martín Perucca has spent more than two decades dedicated to fighting fraud and money laundering. In Argentina and across Latin America, he is a leading authority—not only for his extensive experience but also for a mantra he repeats: security must become a value proposition.

“It’s a profitable bet—one that can even persuade the most skeptical CFO,” he asserts. His perspective goes beyond regulatory compliance: he aims to protect people and organizations, always emphasizing that building a real prevention culture doesn’t happen in days—it takes years. It’s a mindset that challenges how we approach compliance today.

Question: Your career spans consulting, teaching, and financial services experience. What drew you to focus on fraud and security? What problem drives you today?

Answer: My beginnings were in a financial institution in Córdoba, Argentina, within the credit analysis department. But I soon became fascinated by fraud. I discovered I had a knack for detecting it—and every time I prevented it, I felt twice the satisfaction: I helped the organization and protected someone whose identity might otherwise have been stolen.

This was in the early 2000s, when document fraud was rudimentary—fake documents with stickers, very basic. Even so, I realized that prevention not only saved the company from losses but also contributed value to the community. That purpose stays with me today—and it's what motivates me: beyond being my job, I feel I’m contributing to a greater good.

Q: You co-founded Mooy, where compliance is one of your focus areas. How important is regulatory compliance for companies today?

A: Regulations exist for a reason—and there’s no debate about following them. Organizations must adapt. But I’m often called to work after a new regulation emerges: “A new rule came out—design me a fraud prevention strategy.” I try to shift the conversation: compliance is nonnegotiable, but fraud prevention directly contributes to a company’s value proposition. If you approach it this way, compliance happens naturally.

Q: If you place security at the heart of your value proposition, what changes would you implement in a typical onboarding or transaction process?

A: Security must be present from the very start of the relationship—account opening, product application, onboarding. You need to identify, verify, and validate identity with an end-to-end strategy. No single tool does it all.

What matters most is a trained team with clear policies and processes, the right tools, and the permissions needed to manage and prevent potential fraud.

Onboarding

• Biometrics (face, fingerprint, or voice).
• Negative lists / watchlists.
• Customer data consistency checks.
• Internal cross-checks against customer databases.
• Validation against official records.

Transactional

• Orchestrated technology controls, integrated into a risk-based management strategy, enabling real-time monitoring and preventive actions with a multichannel, multiproduct approach.

And one more thing: security is everyone’s responsibility. From the board of directors to frontline employees, everyone can contribute. There should be a designated accountable function, of course, but a culture of prevention is built from the top down.

To accomplish this, several elements are necessary:

• A clear purpose connecting employees to the impact of their actions
• Role-specific training—not one-size-fits-all
• Dedicated budgets for tools and processes
• A code of ethics defining responsibilities and limits
• An anonymous, well-communicated, and sustained whistleblower line

And above all—leadership. Culture doesn’t form overnight; in my experience, it takes at least three years to see results. All of this must be done consistently, with people at the center: both employees and customers. When an employee understands that following a procedure isn’t a formality—but protects customer experience and organizational reputation—they’re far more committed.

Q: Some companies still view compliance as a mere checkbox. What does that mindset cost a business?

A: If you treat it as an accounting expense, you lose the chance to generate value. When integrated into the value proposition, it becomes an investment. In our consulting work, we always prepare a business case: how much loss is prevented, what impact it has on customer experience and portfolio. The numbers are always positive.

The ACFE estimates organizations lose 5% of annual revenue to fraud—that alone justifies investment. Plus, recovery periods for tech tools are usually 12–14 months. And then there’s reputation—what image do you want your organization to have? If you launch a product associated with fraud, the trust lost is far costlier than any prevention investment.

According to KPMG, 83% of consumers choose a financial institution based on security, and 76% of fraud victims leave their bank. Those figures show how security directly impacts business.

Q: What are the main “blind spots” you see in prevention models?

A: The biggest one is neglecting internal fraud. Many organizations believe they don’t have it—but when we assess, it always surfaces. It may vary in severity, but internal fraud is everywhere: factories, clinics, financial institutions. There’s a saying: there are two kinds of organizations—those that have experienced internal fraud, and those that will.

Q: How can any company start correcting these blind spots?

A: The first step is acknowledging and diagnosing: request data, review customer complaints, analyze losses. You always find more than reports show.

Next, plan around three pillars:

1. Technology – monitor 100% of operations, including structured and unstructured data.
2. Secure processes – designed with balance. Overly locked-down products can lose usability. Seek the good, not the perfect.
3. People – a prevention culture is the foundation. Fraud areas must integrate with cybersecurity, AML, tech. Prevention works best when strategies are united.

Today over 90% of fraud is digital—so siloes must go. And something fundamental: behind every fraud is a person. In interviews with victims, I’ve seen fear, shame, uncertainty. Many don’t report because they believe justice won’t act. Their human experience reminds us that preventing fraud isn’t only about protecting balance sheets—it’s about protecting people.

Q: How do you balance compliance with user experience without causing friction?

A: The key is gathering security, cybersecurity, product, and technology teams at one table. When areas work in isolation, friction arises. With collaboration, balance is found. And everything must tie into the organization’s purpose.

If a financial institution states its purpose is “making life easier with tech products,” fraud breaks that promise. With that as a compass, you find solutions that comply, protect, and don’t burden users.

Q: Do you think this mindset will become standard in the industry—or will there always be exceptions?

A: A few years ago it seemed utopian—but no longer. In countries like Argentina and Brazil, many organizations work purposefully and align the whole company. Those who don’t will lose competitiveness. Exceptions will remain—but the trend is clear: shift from obligation-driven compliance to prevention as core value.

Q: You mentioned a risk-based approach—what does that actually mean?

A: It’s common in AML and increasingly in fraud—but it’s more than a buzzword. It means knowing the business, identifying pain points, translating them into risks, ranking them, and allocating resources where residual risk is highest.

Fraud is dynamic. You can’t ignore low risks—they can reactivate. You must monitor all, with varying intensity.

In the diploma program I co-direct with Mario Ader—the first in Latin America focusing on fraud prevention—we summarize the model in three pillars: understand, intervene, measure to improve. That must be the foundation of any strategy.

Q: What advice would you give a junior starting in compliance or fraud prevention?

A: First: make sure you enjoy it. This isn’t for the fainthearted. You may get called at 4 a.m. due to a risk—and you need to be ready. You must have purpose and passion.

Second: study daily—at least one hour. I study more now than when I was in college.

Third: network. Be active on LinkedIn, attend webinars, read, ask.

Fourth: collaborate. Fraudsters collaborate—financial institutions don’t yet. We need to be more united.

Q: Is there real collaboration between financial institutions—or just talk?

A: Real collaboration is growing, especially in Latin America. There are forums in Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador… The system gradually excludes those who don’t participate. A lot remains to be done—but the trend is positive. And you don’t need to share personal data—just typologies, patterns, attack vectors. That already helps a great deal.

Q: Looking five to ten years ahead, what cultural shift would you like to see in the financial industry?

A: The key change: understanding fraud prevention as part of the value proposition. If that’s internalized, everything else flows.

On a broader scale, we need more dialogue between public and private sectors. Regulators sometimes demand unrealistic things—not out of bad faith but lack of understanding. They need to know how the financial system works and where it’s going.

We also need stronger criminal legislation for fraud. Nowadays many criminals know how to slip in and out. The justice system is overwhelmed with more severe crimes—fraud gets too little attention. That must change.