Across the globe, fraud leaders are bracing for a talent crisis. New research by Datos Insights, conducted in the U.S., Germany, Singapore, Brazil, and the United Arab Emirates, found that most fraud executives worry that in five years there won’t be enough experienced leaders left to carry the torch. As seasoned professionals retire and fewer newcomers choose this career path, the pipeline of qualified talent is at risk of drying up — just as the job is becoming more complex than ever.

While headlines focus on the AI arms race between banks and fraudsters, the quieter threat that few are talking about is human. Teams are shrinking, experienced investigators are retiring or burning out, and the nature of the work itself is changing. Fraud prevention is becoming as much about data science and machine learning as about casework and problem solving. The question isn’t whether AI will replace people. It’s whether it will make the work so automated, repetitive, and detached from decision-making that the best people no longer find it challenging or meaningful.

A global problem with a local response

The talent crisis is a global problem for banks. What’s striking about the Datos research is that every market recognizes the same issue, but each is responding differently.

• United States: American banks are throwing money at the problem. Nearly half of U.S. executives expect to increase their fraud budgets by more than 10% over the next five years. But much of that spending is often aimed at competing for scarce talent rather than driving innovation. Internal development programs are growing, but they’re struggling to keep pace with attrition and the lure of higher-paying technology roles outside the industry.
• Singapore: Singapore’s model looks almost opposite to that of the U.S. Instead of expanding teams, institutions are using automation to make leaner teams more effective. With strong regulatory frameworks and coordinated industry efforts, Singaporean banks are methodically building AI-driven workflows that multiply limited human capacity while keeping staff engaged in higher-value judgment work, such as post-incident analysis and refining scam prevention policies.
• Germany: In Germany, the problem is less about quantity and more about fit. Traditional fraud expertise doesn’t translate easily into today’s AI-driven environments. Institutions are investing in retraining programs and emphasizing technical depth, but progress is slowed by privacy regulations that restrict data sharing. As a result, teams often lack the exposure and context they need to build the next generation of fraud fighting capabilities.
• United Arab Emirates (UAE): The UAE presents a different kind of talent challenge. With a smaller domestic talent pool, many financial institutions rely on experienced fraud and risk professionals recruited from India and Western countries. This international hiring strategy brings world-class expertise but also introduces volatility as competition for skilled professionals intensifies globally and immigration and labor policies shift. The reliance on imported talent makes long-term workforce stability harder to achieve. Some UAE institutions are beginning to invest in local upskilling and partnerships with universities to reduce that dependency, but for now, the market remains highly exposed to global talent dynamics.
• Brazil: Brazil faces the steepest climb. With resource constraints and organized crime syndicates driving a surge in scams, institutions are partnering with vendors and universities to build shared talent pipelines. Collaboration isn’t optional — it’s survival.

The retention paradox: When AI makes work less interesting

Another revealing insight from the Datos report came not from survey data but from interviews with current leadership. Several fraud executives voiced concerns that as AI takes over more detection and triage work, there’s a risk that fraud prevention will become less stimulating. When machines handle most of the decisioning, the human role can shrink to oversight, reviewing alerts or managing exceptions instead of solving complex problems.

That shift introduces a new kind of retention risk. Fraud prevention has traditionally appealed to analytical, mission-driven professionals. People in these roles are drawn to the chase, the puzzle, and the purpose of protecting customers. But if their work evolves (or devolves) into little more than overseeing algorithms, many may start looking elsewhere for growth and fulfillment.

The skills of tomorrow

The emerging picture is clear: The next generation of fraud leaders will need a hybrid skill set that includes equal parts investigator, technologist, and strategist. The most valuable professionals won’t just understand fraud typologies. They’ll understand how to train, interpret, and govern AI systems responsibly.

Addressing this looming talent crisis will call for a fundamental rethink of how institutions attract, develop, and retain the people who will define the future of fraud prevention. That means institutions need to:

• Broaden recruitment: draw from data science, behavioral analytics, and cybersecurity fields.
• Redefine career paths: create roles that combine human expertise with AI stewardship.
• Keep the work meaningful: ensure automation augments judgment rather than replaces it.

Can smaller banks compete?

While larger financial institutions can outspend on technology and headcount, smaller banks often have cultural and structural advantages that make them attractive places to work. Their fraud and risk teams work closer to customers, which means analysts see the direct impact of helping real people rather than just managing case volumes. That sense of purpose can be a powerful differentiator for professionals who crave meaningful, hands-on experience.

Smaller institutions also tend to operate with flatter hierarchies and broader roles. Staff wear many hats, gaining exposure to multiple aspects of financial crime, compliance, and digital operations. For ambitious professionals, that can mean faster growth, greater influence, and a stronger sense of ownership. For some, these qualities matter as much as compensation when deciding where to build a career. In an era when automation risks making fraud work feel less engaging, smaller banks may have the edge in keeping it personal, dynamic, and fulfilling.

What happens next

If current trends continue, the industry may split between those that adapt and those that fall behind. Regions, such as Singapore, that successfully balance automation with talent development could set the new global standard. Others that rely solely on paying more for talent or outsourcing it risk widening the expertise gap beyond recovery.

By 2030, the winners in fraud prevention won’t just be those with the best models or biggest budgets. They’ll be the ones that hire and retain the best people by giving them work that challenges, empowers, and matters.