SkillsSkill 4 of 5
Stop the convincing request, even from a good client
Test the payment against the client’s own history and verify both ends through channels you already hold.
Worked example
An important client wants an urgent wire to a new payee
A low score and a familiar face test the login. They don’t test the payment.
The question
Fernmoor Bank, a fictional regional bank, serves Harlow Precision, an invented manufacturer and a client for nine years. Its treasury desk takes a video call from someone presenting as Harlow’s CFO.
Risk score 12/100: low. Known device. Normal login time. Client tenure 9 years. No alert.
| Wires | Largest | |
|---|---|---|
| Payroll processor | 24 | 95 |
| Main steel supplier | 8 | 210 |
| Three other known payees | 4 | 60 |
| Today’s request, new payee | 1 | 480 |
Invented data. 36 past wires, all to five known payees. Today’s $480k is about 2.3 times the largest. The new payee was added two hours ago.
- Caller presenting as the CFOOur supplier changed banks. Wire $480k today or we miss a shipment. Please don’t make this harder; we’re one of your best clients.
- Relationship managerThat sounds like her. I don’t want to upset them.
“The fraud score is low, the caller looks and sounds like the CFO, and the relationship manager wants the wire sent. Do you release it?”
Your turn
Say your answer out loud, or jot notes below. Both work. Or skip to the worked answer.
Not saved by this site. Your browser may restore text when you navigate back.
A strong answer, step by step
Open each step in turn. This is one strong answer, not the only one.
Step 1: Read the payment, not just the score
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Release it: the fraud score is 12 out of 100 and the device is known.
Tempting, but it misses something. The score reads the login. It doesn’t see $480k, about 2.3 times the largest wire in 24 months, to a payee added two hours ago.
Compare the payment with the client’s history: $480k is about 2.3 times the largest of 36 wires, to a payee added two hours ago.
The strong move. It tests the facts the model wasn’t built to see. None of the 36 past wires went to a new payee.
Send it: the client has banked here nine years without a problem.
Tempting, but it misses something. Tenure is exactly what an impersonator borrows. The payment, not the client’s history with the bank, is what’s unusual.
See how a strong candidate says it
“The score reads the login, and the login looks normal. The payment doesn’t: $480k is about 2.3 times the largest wire in 24 months, to a payee added two hours ago. None of the 36 past wires went to a new payee.”
Why it works: It tests the facts the model was not built to see.
Step 2: Verify both ends through channels you already trust
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
The caller looked and sounded like the CFO on video, so identity is confirmed.
Tempting, but it misses something. Video and voice can now be faked. The relationship manager’s “that sounds like her” is the same weak test.
Call back the number the caller gave, to be sure.
Tempting, but it misses something. A number in the request reaches the requester. Only contact details the bank already held test who is asking.
Call the CFO back on the number on file, and confirm the new account with the supplier through contacts the bank already holds.
The strong move. It checks the sender and the recipient separately from the request, which a low login score can’t do.
See how a strong candidate says it
“A familiar face on video doesn’t prove identity any more. I’d call the CFO back on the number on file, and confirm the new account with the supplier using contact details we already hold, not ones in the request.”
Why it works: It checks the sender and the recipient, independently of the request.
Step 3: Treat urgency and status as pressure, not evidence
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
Hold the wire under procedure, tell the client why, and release it as soon as both checks pass.
The strong move. “Today” and “one of your best clients” are pressure, not evidence. A short hold costs less than $480k sent to the wrong account.
Release half now, $240k, to keep the shipment moving, and hold the rest.
Tempting, but it misses something. If the payee is a fraudster, $240k is gone. Splitting the amount doesn’t verify anything.
Let the relationship manager decide, since it’s their client.
Tempting, but it misses something. The relationship manager wants it sent and isn’t independent of the pressure. The checks don’t depend on whose client it is.
See how a strong candidate says it
““Today” and “we’re one of your best clients” don’t change the checks. I’d hold the wire under our procedures, tell the client why, and release it as soon as both checks pass.”
Why it works: The relationship is protected by not losing the client’s money.
Step 4: Escalate and close the loop
What would you do here? Open the move you’d make.
If the call-back fails, just decline the wire and close the file.
Tempting, but it misses something. A failed call-back means someone may be inside the client’s account. The account needs protecting and fraud operations need to know.
If the call-back fails, escalate to fraud operations, protect the account and file what policy requires; report the pattern either way.
The strong move. A new payee plus a large amount is a rule the controls can learn from, whatever this call turns out to be.
If the CFO confirms, release it and skip the supplier check.
Tempting, but it misses something. The CFO may have been fooled too: changed supplier bank details are a common scam. The payee still needs checking through known contacts.
See how a strong candidate says it
“If the call-back fails, I’d escalate to fraud operations, protect the account and file what policy requires. Either way, I’d report the new-payee, large-amount pattern so it can become a rule.”
Why it works: One good catch should improve the control for the next one.
The answer, in short
- Decision
- Hold the wire until a call-back to the number on file and an independent check of the new payee both pass.
- Because
- The amount is about 2.3 times anything sent in 24 months, to a payee created two hours ago. A low login score and a convincing caller test neither fact.
- What would change it
- The CFO confirms the request on the number on file, and the supplier confirms the new account through contacts the bank already holds.
Common traps
- Trusting a low score built on login signals.
- Treating a familiar voice or face as verification.
- Calling back the number given in the request.
- Letting the client’s importance decide.
Check your answer
- Did I compare the request to the client’s own payment history?
- Did I verify the sender and the recipient separately?
- Did I use contact details the bank already held?
- Did I explain the hold to the client without giving in?
Want feedback on how you’d answer? Practice “Stop the convincing request, even from a good client” with an AI interviewer on Socratify.
Last reviewed Nov 9, 2026