For C-level and Risk Leadership

Measurable risk reduction, defensible ROI.

Financial crime exposure, regulatory pressure and the operational cost of alert handling are all rising. Bucephalus is an integrated fraud and anti-money-laundering platform designed to materially reduce loss events, shrink false-positive volume and make every control decision auditable — without replacing your core banking stack.

Loss reduction Fewer successful fraud and laundering events AI-assisted detection across payments, cards and counterparties, tuned to your bank's risk appetite.
Operational efficiency Lower cost per alert, faster case handling Risk-scored queues, explainable signals and STR-ready case packs reduce manual workload per analyst.
Regulatory defensibility Evidence, not assurances Every alert, decision and override is logged with its underlying rationale — ready for supervisory review.

Any efficiency or risk-reduction figures shown on downstream sections reference published industry benchmarks (ACFE, Europol EMPACT, EBA, FATF, Nasdaq Verafin). Bank-specific outcomes are agreed contractually in the pilot KPI scorecard.

The Industry Reality

The numbers behind the compliance crisis.

Legacy fraud detection systems create a paradox: enormous spending, minimal results. Here's what the industry data reveals.

95%
False Positive Rate

of AML alerts in traditional rule-based systems are false positives, drowning compliance teams in noise.

Industry average
<1%
Illicit funds caught

of the estimated USD 0.8–2 T laundered annually is intercepted. Criminals exploit gaps between siloed institutions.

UNODC estimate
USD 274 B+
Annual compliance cost

spent globally on AML compliance — much of it on investigating low-quality alerts that lead nowhere.

LexisNexis Risk Solutions
22 hrs
Per SAR Investigation

actual investigation time per suspicious activity report, versus the 2-hour regulatory estimate.

Independent research

What AI-Powered Detection Changes

60% Fewer false positives with AI/ML scoring
92–96% Detection accuracy with deep learning
40% Customers saved from onboarding abandonment
Why Silbad

For banks that must prove, not promise.

Designed with equal weight on the technology and the regulation.

01

No data exposure

Transaction data stays within your infrastructure. Our federated model means intelligence flows, raw data doesn't. Designed to align with GDPR, PSD2 and local banking law — no third-party data sharing required.

02

Real-time scoring — < 500 ms target

Scoring engineered not to slow your transaction pipeline, against the same < 500 ms target we hold ourselves to in our KPIs. While traditional SAR investigations take up to 22 hours per alert, Bucephalus pre-scores and prioritises — so your team spends time on real threats, not noise.

03

Collective intelligence

Every institution in the network strengthens every other. Currently, less than 1% of laundered funds are caught globally. Federated pattern sharing multiplies detection power — a fraud pattern recognised at one bank reaches the others with the next model refresh.

04

From a 95% false-positive baseline toward < 5–10%

Industry-standard AML systems produce 95% false positives — costing 19% of total fraud budgets. In industry studies, AI-based scoring cuts false positives by up to 60%, while 40% fewer customers abandon onboarding due to reduced friction. Sources in the references section.

Operational KPIs

Targets we hold ourselves to.

Bucephalus is engineered against measurable operating targets — the same targets that show up in pilot success criteria and production SLAs. Industry baselines for false-positive and detection rates are documented in our references.

Metric Target Note
Fraud decision latency < 500 ms End-to-end, including channel round-trip
KYC decision time < 5 min Standard-risk customers, fully automated
AML alert handling < 24 h Triage to closure, standard-priority alerts
High-risk case resolution < 4 h From case creation to first regulator-visible action
False positive rate < 5–10% Industry baseline is 95%[3]
Detection rate > 95% On confirmed fraud and AML typologies in pilots[4]
STR / SAR accuracy > 99% Pre-submission validation against FIU schemas
Platform availability 99.95% Active-active, region-redundant deployment
Pilot Program

Validate Bucephalus in your bank — in a single quarter.

The pilot is designed to give your AML, fraud and risk leadership a defensible, evidence-based answer to the question “does this work for us?” — without disturbing your live customer experience.

What's in Scope

The pilot covers all five core operational areas — not a sliver of the platform.

  • Real-time fraud detection
  • AML transaction monitoring
  • Sanctions screening
  • Case management
  • Regulatory reporting (STR/SAR, PSD2)

Operating Modes

Shadow Mode Bucephalus scores every transaction in parallel; existing systems remain authoritative. Zero customer impact.
Controlled Live Mode Bucephalus enforces decisions on a defined segment under tight risk controls and rollback procedures.

Typical Timeline

1
Discovery Week 0–2

Joint scoping with your AML, fraud, risk and IT teams. We map data sources, target use-cases, KPIs and acceptance criteria.

2
Station Deployment Week 2–4

Bucephalus Station deployed on-premise or in your private cloud. Identity, network and audit-log integration completed under your change management.

3
Shadow Mode Week 4–8

Full traffic mirrored into Bucephalus. The platform scores in parallel without affecting customer journeys, while we tune scenarios to your portfolio.

4
Controlled Live Week 8–12

Bucephalus moves from observation to action on selected segments — typically high-risk corridors or instant-payment flows — under tight monitoring.

5
Validation & Decision Week 12+

Joint review against the agreed KPIs. Outputs include a KPI report, complete audit trail and an operational validation deck for steering committee approval.

What You Walk Away With

KPI report Pilot-period detection, false-positive, latency and case-handling numbers, side-by-side with your incumbent.
Audit trail Full immutable record of every decision, rule change and analyst action — supervisor-ready.
Operational validation A board-ready package on operating model, governance and roll-out plan.
Request a pilot proposal → Share a few details about your institution — we will reply within two business days with a tailored pilot scope and KPI proposal.
References

Sources & further reading.

Every quantitative claim on this page is grounded in publicly available regulation, supervisory guidance, peer-reviewed research or independent industry studies.

[1]
Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 — Artificial Intelligence Act

Annex III lists fraud detection and creditworthiness assessment among high-risk AI use-cases, requiring transparency, human oversight and explainability.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj
[2]
Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 — Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA)

Requirements for ICT risk management, incident reporting, operational resilience testing and third-party risk for EU financial entities.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2022/2554/oj
[3]
Industry Reporting on AML False Positive Rates

Industry surveys consistently report that 90–99% of AML transaction-monitoring alerts in rule-based systems are false positives — a long-standing finding repeated by multiple vendors and analyst houses.

https://www.flagright.com/post/aml-false-positives-the-95-problem-banks-cant-afford-to-ignore
[4]
Academic & Vendor Research on AI/ML AML Detection

Peer-reviewed and applied research reports detection accuracy in the 92–96% range for deep-learning models on benchmark transaction data, with up to 60% reduction in false positives versus rule-only baselines.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667305323000509
[5]
UNODC — Money-Laundering Estimates

The UN Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that 2–5% of global GDP — roughly USD 800 billion to USD 2 trillion — is laundered annually, of which less than 1% is intercepted.

https://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/money-laundering/overview.html
[6]
LexisNexis Risk Solutions — True Cost of Financial Crime Compliance

Annual study putting global financial-crime compliance costs above USD 274 billion, with EMEA institutions carrying a disproportionate share.

https://risk.lexisnexis.com/global/en/insights-resources/research/true-cost-of-financial-crime-compliance-study
[7]
Directive (EU) 2018/843 — AMLD 5 / 6 and AML Package

EU framework for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism, including the 2024 AML Package establishing AMLA and the AML Regulation.

https://finance.ec.europa.eu/financial-crime/anti-money-laundering-and-countering-financing-terrorism-eu-level_en
[8]
Directive (EU) 2015/2366 — PSD2

Payment Services Directive 2, including Strong Customer Authentication and Article 96 fraud reporting requirements; PSD3 / PSR currently in EU legislative process.

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2015/2366/oj