Tim Royston-Webb, CEO, SentryBay
Deepfake scams in banking have shifted from experimental misuse of artificial intelligence to a serious operational threat. What began as digital novelty now drives real financial loss, regulatory scrutiny, and legal exposure for financial institutions.
The damage is no longer limited to a single fraudulent transfer. A convincing synthetic video call can trigger large wire payments, manipulate investor confidence, or persuade customers to act on instructions that appear to come from a trusted bank.
What concerns me most is that the institution being impersonated is often not the one that created the fake. Yet it may still face legal action if customers suffer losses and argue that stronger safeguards should have been in place.
The legal environment around deepfake scams in banking is shifting
Recent legal analysis makes this clear. Courts and regulators are becoming more willing to assign responsibility to institutions when deepfake scams in banking succeed.
Much of the public discussion has focused on anonymous actors and evidentiary challenges. What is gaining traction now is liability. If a bank had the resources and intelligence to foresee evolving threats, should it have implemented stronger controls?
In practical terms, the narrative is moving from “fraudsters did this” to “you were in the best position to stop it.”
Real world examples show the scale of deepfake scams in banking
One widely cited case illustrates the severity of the risk. A finance employee joined what appeared to be a routine video conference with the company’s chief financial officer and colleagues. After the call, the employee approved fifteen transfers totaling nearly twenty five million dollars.
The executives were not real. Their faces, voices, and mannerisms were synthetically generated.
Research suggests this is not isolated. More than a quarter of executives report at least one deepfake related incident in their organizations. Other studies indicate that economic loss from deepfakes is widespread.
Deepfake scams in banking are no longer rare. They are systemic.
Why regulators expect stronger controls
Financial institutions operate in a highly regulated environment. They handle payments, customer data, and sensitive financial information every day.
Supervisory bodies are signaling that institutions with access to better threat intelligence may have an affirmative obligation to implement controls that reflect evolving risks. Courts are also demonstrating greater willingness to require safeguards that protect customers from third party fraud.
Deepfake scams in banking create exposure beyond direct payment fraud. Synthetic executive communications can affect markets. Fabricated customer interactions can trigger consumer protection claims. AI generated voice campaigns can lead to additional litigation.
Where deepfake scams in banking begin
It is important to recognize where many of these attacks originate. Deepfakes require source material. Synthetic video and cloned voice are built from captured audio and visual data.
That data is often harvested from endpoint microphones, cameras, and user interface activity during authenticated sessions.
If adversaries cannot access audio and video devices, their ability to create convincing impersonations is significantly reduced.
Preventing deepfake scams in banking at the interface layer
This is where prevention must evolve.
At SentryBay, Armored Client for IGEL enforces policy driven control over microphone and camera access at the endpoint, including during active sessions. Devices can be blocked by default and enabled only for explicitly approved applications.
By limiting unauthorized audio and video capture, we reduce the raw material required to generate deepfakes. This approach complements identity controls, monitoring, and fraud detection strategies already in place.
Deepfake scams in banking will continue to evolve. Institutions that combine governance, operational discipline, customer education, and preventative endpoint controls will be far better positioned to protect customers and limit liability.
About the Author
Tim Royston Webb, CEO of SentryBay, has over twenty five years of experience working across strategy, data, and enterprise technology. He has led go to market, revenue, strategic and cybersecurity initiatives at several leading business and IT advisory organizations.
He is the founder of Pivotal iQ, which was acquired in 2018, and later became a co-founder of the combined business, now known as HG Insights. His work has focused on how organisations apply data and analytics to drive better decisions and outcomes. This background naturally extends into cybersecurity. For Tim, protecting organisational information assets is a core requirement for trust, resilience and long term business success.
