Hassan Zebdeh, Financial Crime Advisor at Eastnets

A decade ago, paying for coffee at a small café in Riyadh meant fumbling with cash – or, at best, handing over a plastic card. Today, locals casually wave smartphones over terminals, instantly settling the bill, splitting it among friends, and even transferring money abroad before their drink cools.

This seemingly trivial scene illustrates a profound truth: while the West debates incremental upgrades to ageing payment systems, the Arabian Gulf has leapfrogged straight into the future. As of late 2024, Saudi Arabia achieved a remarkable 98% adoption rate for contactless payments in face-to-face transactions, a significant leap from just 4% in 2017.

Align financial transformation with a bold national vision

One milestone that exemplifies the Gulf’s approach is Saudi Arabia’s launch of its first Swift Service Bureau. While not the first SSB worldwide, its presence in the Kingdom underscores a broader theme: rather than rely on piecemeal upgrades to older infrastructure, Saudi Arabia chose a proven yet modern route, aligned to Vision 2030, to unify international payment standards, enhance security, and reduce operational overhead.

And it matters, because in a region heavily reliant on expatriate workers whose steady stream of remittances powers whole economies. The stakes for frictionless cross-border transactions are unusually high. Rather than tinkering around the edges of an ageing system, Saudi Arabia opted for a bold and coherent solution, deliberately aligning national pride and purpose with practical financial innovation. It’s a reminder that infrastructure, at its best, doesn’t merely enable transactions; it reshapes how people imagine the future.

Make regulation a launchpad, not a bottleneck

Regulation often carries the reputation of an overprotective parent – necessary, perhaps, but tiresome, cautious to a fault, and prone to slowing progress rather than enabling it. It’s the bureaucratic equivalent of wrapping every new idea in bubble wrap and paperwork. Yet Bahrain has managed something rare: flipping the narrative entirely. Instead of acting solely as gatekeepers, Bahraini regulators decided to become collaborators. Their fintech sandbox isn’t merely a regulatory innovation; it’s psychological brilliance, transforming a potentially adversarial relationship into a partnership

Within this curated environment, fintech firms have launched practical experiments with striking results. Take Tarabut Gateway, which pioneered open banking APIs, reshaping how banks and customers interact. Rain, a cryptocurrency exchange, tested compliance frameworks safely, quickly becoming one of the Gulf’s trusted crypto players. Elsewhere, startups trialled AI-driven identity verification and seamless cross-border payments, all under the watchful yet adaptive guidance of Bahraini regulators. Successes were rapidly scaled; failures offered immediate lessons, free from damaging legal fallout. Bahrain proves regulation, thoughtfully applied, can genuinely empower innovation rather than restrict it.

Prioritise cross-border interoperability and unified standards

Cross-border payments have long been a maddening puzzle – expensive, sluggish, and unpredictably complicated. Most Western banks seem resigned to this reality, treating the spaghetti-like mess of correspondent banking relationships as a necessary evil. Yet Gulf states looked at this same complexity and saw not just inconvenience, but opportunity. Instead of battling against the tide, they cleverly redirected it, embracing standards like ISO 20022, which neatly streamline data exchange and slash friction from global transactions.

Examples abound: Saudi Arabia’s adoption of ISO 20022 through its Swift Service Bureau will notably accelerated cross-border transactions and improve transparency. The UAE and Saudi Arabia also jointly piloted Project Aber, a digital currency initiative that significantly reduced settlement times for interbank payments. Similarly, Bahrain’s collaboration with fintechs has simplified previously burdensome remittance processes, reducing both cost and complexity.

Target digital ecosystems for financial inclusion

One of the most intriguing elements of the Gulf’s payments transformation is the speed and enthusiasm with which consumers embraced new technologies. In Bahrain, mobile wallet payments surged by 196% in 2021, contributing to a nearly 50% year-over-year increase in digital payment volumes. Similarly, Saudi Arabia experienced a near tripling of mobile payment volumes in the same year, with mobile transactions accounting for 35% of all payments. 

The West, by contrast, still struggles with financial inclusion. In the U.S., millions remain unbanked or underbanked, held back by distrust, geographic isolation, and high fees. Digital solutions exist, but widespread adoption has lagged, partly because major institutions view inclusion as a long-term aspiration rather than an immediate priority. The Gulf shows that when digital tools are made integral to daily life, rather than optional extras, the barriers to financial inclusion quickly dissolve.

The road ahead

As the Gulf region continues to refine its payment systems experimenting with digital currencies, advanced data protection laws, and AI-driven compliance the ripple effects will be felt far beyond the GCC. Western players can treat these developments as an external threat or as a chance to rejuvenate their own approaches.

Ultimately, if you want a glimpse of where financial services may be headed towards integrated platforms, real-time international transactions, and widespread digital inclusion – the Gulf experience is a prime example of what’s possible. The question is whether other markets will step up, follow suit, and even surpass these achievements. With global financial landscapes evolving at record speed, hesitation carries its own risks. The Arabian Gulf has shown that bold bets can pay off; perhaps that’s the most enduring lesson for the West.

By Husnain Bajwa, SVP of Product, Risk Solutions, SEON

As digital threats escalate, businesses are desperately seeking comprehensive solutions to counteract the growing complexity and sophistication of evolving fraud vectors. The latest industry trend – consortium data sharing – promises a revolutionary approach to fraud prevention, where organisations combine their data to strengthen fraud defences.

It’s understandable how the consortium data model presents an appealing narrative of collective intelligence: by pooling fraud insights across multiple organisations, businesses hope to create an omniscient network capable of instantaneously detecting and preventing fraudulent activities.

And this approach seems intuitive – more data should translate to better protection. However, the reality of data sharing is far more complex and fundamentally flawed. Overlooked hurdles reveal significant structural limitations that undermine the effectiveness of consortium strategies, preventing this approach from fulfilling its potential to safeguard against fraud. Here are several key misconceptions about how consortium approaches fail to deliver promised benefits.

Fallacy of Scale Without Quality

One of the most persistent myths in fraud prevention mirrors the trope of enhancing a low-resolution image to reveal more explicit details. There’s a pervasive belief that massive volumes of consortium data can reveal insights not present in any of the original signals. However, this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of information theory and data analysis.

To protect participant privacy, consortium approaches strip away critical information elements relevant to fraud detection. This includes precise identifiers, nuanced temporal sequences and essential contextual metadata. Through the loss of granular signal fidelity required to anonymise information to make data sharing viable, said processes skew data while eroding its quality and reliability. The result is a sanitised dataset that bears little resemblance to the rich, complex information needed for effective fraud prevention. Further, embedded reporting biases from different entities can likewise exacerbate quality issues. Knowing where data comes from is imperative, and consortium data frequently lacks freshness and provenance.

Competitive Distortion is a Problem

Competitive dynamics can impact the efficacy of shared data strategies. Businesses today operate in competitive environments marked by inherent conflicts, where companies have strategic reasons to restrict their information sharing. The selective reporting of fraud cases, intentional delays in sharing emerging fraud patterns and strategic obfuscation of crucial insights can lead to a “tragedy of the commons” situation, where individual organisational interests systematically degrade the potential of consortium information sharing for the collective benefit.

Moreover, when direct competitors share data, organisations often limit their contributions to non-sensitive fraud cases or withhold high-value signals that reduce the effectiveness of the consortium dynamics.

Anonymisation’s Hidden Costs

Consortiums are compelled to aggressively anonymise data to sidestep the legal and ethical concerns of operating akin to de facto credit reporting agencies. This anonymisation process encompasses removing precise identifiers, truncating temporal sequences, coarsening behavioural patterns, eliminating cross-entity relationships and reducing contextual signals. Such extensive modifications limit the data’s utility for fraud detection by obscuring the details necessary for identifying and analysing nuanced fraudulent activities.

These anonymisation efforts, needed to preserve privacy, also mean that vital contextual information is lost, significantly hampering the ability to detect fraud trends over time and diluting the effectiveness of such data. This overall reduction in data utility illustrates the profound trade-offs required to balance privacy concerns with effective fraud detection.

The Problem of Lost Provenance

In the critical frameworks of DIKA (Data, Information, Knowledge, Action) and OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act), data provenance is essential for validating information quality, understanding contextual relevance, assessing temporal applicability, determining confidence levels and guiding action selection. However, once data provenance is lost through consortium sharing, it is irrecoverable, leading to a permanent degradation in decision quality.

This loss of provenance becomes even more critical at the moment of decision-making. Without the ability to verify the freshness of data, assess the reliability of its sources or understand the context in which it was collected, decision-makers are left with limited visibility into preprocessing steps and a reduced confidence in their signal interpretation. These constraints hinder the effectiveness of fraud detection efforts, as the underlying data lacks the necessary clarity for precise and timely decision-making.

The Realities of Fraud Detection Techniques

Modern fraud prevention hinges on well-established analytical techniques such as rule-based pattern matching, supervised classification, anomaly detection, network analysis and temporal sequence modelling. These methods underscore a critical principle in fraud detection: the signal quality far outweighs the data volume. High-quality, context-rich data enhances the effectiveness of these techniques, enabling more accurate and dynamic responses to potential fraud.

Despite the rapid advancements in machine learning (ML) and data science, the fundamental constraints of fraud detection remain unchanged. The effectiveness of advanced ML models is still heavily dependent on the quality of data, the intricacy of feature engineering, the interpretability of models and adherence to regulatory compliance and operational constraints. No degree of algorithmic sophistication can compensate for fundamental data limitations.

As a result, the core of effective fraud detection continues to rely more on the precision and context of data rather than sheer quantity. This reality shapes the strategic focus of fraud prevention efforts, prioritising data integrity and actionable insights over expansive but less actionable data sets.

Evolving Into Trust & Safety: The Imperative for High-Quality Data

As the scope of fraud prevention broadens into the more encompassing field of trust and safety, the requirements for effective management become more complex. New demands, such as end-to-end activity tracking, cross-domain risk assessment, behavioural pattern analysis, intent determination and impact evaluation, all rely heavily on the quality and provenance of data.

In trust and safety operations, maintaining clear audit trails, ensuring source verification, preserving data context, assessing actions’ impact, and justifying decisions become paramount.

However, the nature of consortium data, which is anonymised and decontextualised to protect privacy and meet regulatory standards, cannot fundamentally support clear audit trails, ensure source verification, preserve data context, and readily assess the impact of actions to justify decisions. These limitations showcase the critical need for organisations to develop their own rich, contextually detailed datasets that retain provenance and can be directly applied to operational needs to ensure that trust and safety measures are comprehensive, effectively targeted, and relevant.

Rethinking Data Strategies

While consortium data sharing offers a compelling vision, its execution is fraught with challenges that diminish its practical utility. Fundamental limitations such as data quality concerns, competitive dynamics, privacy requirements and the critical need for provenance preservation undermine the effectiveness of such collaborative efforts. Instead of relying on massive, shared datasets of uncertain quality, organisations should pivot toward cultivating their own high-quality internal datasets.

The future of effective fraud prevention lies not in the quantity of shared data but in the quality of proprietary, context-rich data with clear provenance and direct operational relevance. By building and maintaining high-quality datasets, organisations can create a more resilient and effective fraud prevention framework tailored to their specific operational needs and challenges.

Luke Shipley, CEO and co-founder at Zinc

Is this the year we say goodbye to hybrid work and return to the office full time? Some major companies certainly seem to think so. In recent months, organisations like Santander, PwC, Amazon, Lloyds Bank, JP Morgan, and WPP have all rolled out Return-to-Office (RTO) mandates.

However, the debate over RTO is far from settled, with supporters emphasising workplace culture and critics arguing that it has minimal impact on productivity and puts increased costs on workers. What’s clear, however, is that shifting back to full-time office work after years of hybrid arrangements will bring challenges for businesses. Employees accustomed to flexible work may face stress, long commutes, and rigid schedules, potentially affecting job satisfaction and productivity. Meanwhile, HR teams could struggle with talent retention and recruitment, as workplace expectations evolve.

Striking the right balance between the benefits of in-person collaboration and the risks of employee dissatisfaction will be key for companies navigating this transition.

Impact of RTO policies on the modern workplace

The transition for RTO mandates is already facing considerable backlash. At WPP, the requirement for four days in the office sparked widespread resistance, with thousands of employees signing a petition urging leadership to reverse the policy. Elsewhere, blanket RTO mandates are causing widespread resentment to employees globally. Such rigid policies risk damaging morale and could drive employees toward more flexible opportunities elsewhere.

In today’s workplace, employee satisfaction is closely tied to flexibility. The level of risk executives are willing to take with RTO policies shapes company culture, influencing recruitment, retention, and overall workplace dynamics. Leaders who remain adaptable and responsive to employee needs foster a more positive environment, improving both hiring and long-term engagement. In contrast, strict mandates can create barriers, deterring potential candidates and limiting accessibility.

Business leaders must adapt their approach to risk, recognising that sustainable growth depends not on avoiding risk altogether but on taking the right risks. Executives who prioritise transparency and adaptability in hiring and workforce management lay the groundwork for innovation and resilience. This mindset is crucial not just for growth but for navigating digital transformation and future challenges.

The shift toward flexibility isn’t just a market-driven trend—it’s also a response to evolving regulations and an increasingly hybrid, global workforce. As the nature of work changes, organisations must prioritise their most valuable asset: their people.

Growing strain on HR teams

For HR teams, managing the transition back to the office means addressing employee resistance, differing preferences, and varying levels of readiness for in-person work. This challenge extends beyond existing employees—it also impacts talent acquisition. In a competitive job market, companies may struggle to attract candidates willing to commit to full-time office work. To remain competitive, HR will need to highlight the benefits of in-office culture, career growth opportunities, and a supportive work environment.

Additionally, HR professionals must navigate logistical challenges, including office space management, safety protocols, and hybrid work structures, all while preserving company culture and employee engagement. Striking the right balance between business objectives and employee satisfaction will require a mix of empathy, flexibility, and strategic planning.

Leveraging technology to drive the future of work

Smaller businesses naturally foster a sense of shared success and trust, but for larger organisations, clearly communicating RTO expectations from the outset of the hiring process is essential. Finding the right candidates has become one of the biggest challenges for large enterprises, making strong hiring practices and the right technology critical. By integrating these elements into recruitment systems, hiring managers can ensure that candidates are aligned with RTO mandates from day one.

As hybrid and remote work models evolve, HR teams must also navigate the growing influence of AI in job applications, which can make it harder to assess a candidate’s true fit and transparency. To address these challenges, businesses should leverage technology and automation to streamline hiring. Automating background checks, for example, can cut manual workload in half, improving both efficiency and accuracy.

By embracing automation, larger organisations can replicate the trust and loyalty often seen in smaller companies while building a committed workforce aligned with long-term business goals. This approach allows HR teams to assess candidates with confidence, maintain efficiency, and reduce disruptions for both employers and job seekers.