Graph Contamination in Fraud Detection: The Problem Nobody Talks About

Graph Contamination in Fraud Detection: The Problem Nobody Talks About

---

How it all started

After years building fraud detection systems, I kept seeing the same thing: companies implement graph-based detection, celebrate catching fraud rings, and then watch their false positives go up month after month.

The graphs were working. But they were also hurting legitimate customers.

Why it caught my attention

When I started designing a graph architecture for fraud detection, one question hit me: what happens when a good customer shares WiFi with a fraudster?

Think about it. An airport. A coffee shop. A university. Thousands of people, one IP range. One fraudster attacks, and suddenly everyone connected to that location gets flagged.

That’s not fraud detection. That’s collateral damage.

The scenario that made it click

María buys a flight from the airport at 9 AM. Great customer - months of clean history, several successful purchases, zero problems.

Two hours later, a fraudster runs card testing from the same airport. Same geolocation. Same network.

In a traditional graph, María is now connected to the fraudster. Her next purchase? Higher risk score. Maybe declined. Maybe extra verification.

She did nothing wrong. She just had coffee at the wrong Starbucks.

The real cost nobody measures

This is not theoretical. I’ve seen it kill customer relationships:

• Legitimate customers blocked for “suspicious connections”
• Support teams buried in false positive reviews
• Customer lifetime value destroyed by unnecessary friction
• Detection accuracy getting worse as graphs fill with noise

The irony? The tool built to catch fraud ends up punishing your best customers.

Why this keeps happening

The industry treats graphs as magic. Connect the nodes, find the fraud. Done.

But there’s a bad assumption in every traditional implementation: “If a node is connected to fraud, it’s probably fraudulent.”

In shared spaces, connection is coincidence, not conspiracy.

What I learned the hard way

Not all customers deserve the same level of scrutiny.

New user with zero history? Analyze everything. Check every connection. Be paranoid.

Customer with months of clean transactions and zero chargebacks? They’ve probably earned some trust.

But this has to work both ways. If a chargeback comes in from a customer who seemed good, you need to reevaluate. That new information is telling you the profile might not be as trustworthy as you thought.

And there’s something else I’ve seen many times: fraudsters who pretend to be good customers for months, build clean history, earn trust, and then show their true face. It’s a common tactic. They build themselves up as legitimate customers just to tear everything down later.

That’s why zero trust is still important. It’s not about trusting blindly because someone has good history. It’s about finding the balance between how you evaluate them and who they really are. Profiles need to be evaluated constantly - some earn more trust over time, others lose it. The system has to reflect that.

It sounds obvious when you say it out loud: proven customers shouldn’t be penalized for where they happen to be. But “proven” is not permanent - it’s earned and lost based on behavior.

The shift in thinking

Trust should be gradual. Customers who prove themselves over time should be treated different than unknown users. And if something changes - like a chargeback shows up - the system adapts.

It’s not about lowering security. It’s about putting resources where they really matter.

When you get this right, everything gets better: graphs stay clean, queries stay fast, false positives drop, and detection actually improves over time.

The industry’s blind spot

This problem is not being solved in most implementations out there.

Vendors sell graphs as magic. The contamination only shows up at scale, in production, months later. By that point, everyone accepts it as “that’s how fraud detection works.”

It doesn’t have to be that way.

My conclusion

Next time you evaluate a fraud detection system, ask one question:

How do you protect legitimate customers from contamination by association?

If the answer is “we don’t” or “that’s just the tradeoff,” you’re looking at something that will hurt your best customers over time.

Fraud detection is not just about catching bad actors. It’s about protecting the good ones.