Credit Unions Can Now Share More Fraud Intelligence Than Ever Before

Fighting Fraud Together: FinCEN Expands Information Sharing Among Financial Institutions

–

For years, one of the greatest frustrations facing credit union fraud investigators has been watching a familiar pattern repeat itself.

A synthetic identity is used to obtain an auto loan at one institution. The scheme succeeds. Weeks later, a nearly identical application appears at another credit union across town. A different dealer. A different branch. A different loan officer. But the same fraud organization.

Each institution often investigated the incident independently.

That may no longer be necessary.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) recently issued revised guidance clarifying the scope of information-sharing permitted under Section 314(b) of the USA PATRIOT Act, expanding how participating financial institutions can work together to identify and prevent fraud. Shortly afterward, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) encouraged federally insured credit unions to take advantage of the updated guidance, describing it as an important tool for combating increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes.

Read the FINCEN Press Release Here!

–

More Than Money Laundering

Although Section 314(b) has traditionally been associated with anti-money laundering investigations, FinCEN’s updated guidance makes clear that participating institutions may voluntarily share information relating to suspected fraud and other specified unlawful activities under the program’s legal safe harbor.

For credit unions, that represents a significant operational shift.

The guidance confirms that participating institutions may share information involving:

Attempted transactions that never resulted in funded loans or completed accounts.
Video surveillance and branch security footage.
Cyber-related indicators such as IP addresses and device information.
Fraud indicators associated with suspected criminal activity.
Information even when the receiving institution has no existing customer relationship with the suspected individual.

In other words, institutions no longer have to wait until a fraud scheme succeeds before discussing many of the warning signs.

–

Why Collections Departments Should Care

Collections professionals often become involved only after a borrower stops paying.

By then, the fraud has already occurred.

The revised guidance creates an opportunity for collections, fraud investigators, lending departments and information security teams to work together much earlier in the lending lifecycle.

Consider several common scenarios:

A borrower obtains financing using a synthetic identity.

A straw purchaser acquires multiple vehicles through different dealerships.

A title fraud ring repeatedly moves stolen collateral between lenders.

A dealer submits applications containing identical employment documentation or manipulated income records.

Under the revised guidance, participating institutions may be able to compare those patterns with one another before the same organization victimizes multiple credit unions.

For collections departments, fewer fraudulent loans entering the portfolio means fewer charge-offs, fewer skip-tracing assignments and fewer expensive recovery efforts months later.

–

Fraud Is No Longer a Single-Institution Problem

Organized fraud rarely targets only one lender.

Professional fraud rings deliberately spread activity across multiple financial institutions to avoid attracting attention. One credit union may only see a small piece of a much larger scheme.

The revised 314(b) guidance recognizes that reality.

Rather than treating fraud prevention as an isolated institution-by-institution effort, FinCEN is encouraging financial institutions to safely connect those individual pieces into a broader intelligence picture.

–

Industry Groups Asked for Greater Flexibility

The clarification also reflects years of requests from the financial services industry.

Trade associations and financial institutions argued that fraudsters had become increasingly organized while information-sharing rules remained unnecessarily restrictive. Comment letters urged FinCEN to clarify that institutions could exchange practical fraud intelligence, not merely traditional anti-money laundering information, without fear of liability when operating within the Section 314(b) framework.

The updated guidance largely addresses those concerns by providing additional examples of permissible information sharing and confirming that institutions can exchange fraud-related indicators under the program’s existing safe harbor protections.

–

The Real Challenge Begins Now

The regulatory clarification is only the first step.

Credit unions must now determine how to operationalize the expanded authority.

That includes developing procedures that answer practical questions such as:

When should fraud investigators initiate a 314(b) inquiry?
Who is responsible for documenting shared information?
How should lending, fraud, collections and cybersecurity teams coordinate?
What information should be retained for examination purposes?
Which employees require additional training?

Participation remains voluntary, but institutions wishing to use the program must register with FinCEN and maintain appropriate procedures to protect the confidentiality and security of shared information.

–

Executive Perspective

For years, fraud prevention has largely focused on making individual institutions harder targets.

FinCEN’s revised guidance points toward a different model, making the entire financial system more difficult to exploit.

As synthetic identities, dealer fraud, account takeovers, title fraud and organized auto-loan schemes become increasingly sophisticated, the competitive advantage may no longer belong solely to the institution with the best fraud software.

It may belong to the institutions willing, and prepared, to compare notes.