Customer View
Written to be understood by someone who is not a fraud expert.
- What the scam looks like, in plain language
- The warning signs to notice
- What to do right now — pause, verify, protect
- Where to report it, including local law enforcement
180Angles Intelligence · For Institutions
Governed scam intelligence your frontline can actually use.
Actively developed180Angles Intelligence takes trusted-source scam information, puts it through a defined review, and turns it into two synchronized messages: guidance for the employee who takes the call, and plain-language education for the customer who receives it.
The customer-protection problem
Most scam losses do not begin with a technical breach. They begin with a conversation. A customer is persuaded — by phone, text, email or a fake website — to move their own money or hand over their own credentials. By the time a transaction appears, the customer has already been convinced, and often believes they are being helped.
That is a social-engineering problem, and it sits in an awkward gap. Fraud systems are built to watch transactions and accounts. They are not built to reach a person before the conversation succeeds. Meanwhile, the institution frequently does know which scams are circulating — but that knowledge is scattered across teams, arrives faster than training can be updated, and rarely reaches the branch employee or the customer in a form either can act on.
180Angles Intelligence is built for that gap: the distance between what an institution knows about emerging scams and what its employees and customers actually understand.
Detect. Govern. Translate. Intervene. Learn.
Governance is the point, not a wrapper around it. Nothing is published because someone saw it somewhere.
-
Stage 1: Detect
Emerging scam activity is identified from trusted, published sources. 180Angles Intelligence is an intelligence layer, not a transaction monitor — it does not observe your customers or your systems.
-
Stage 2: Govern
Every record moves through defined intake, review, and approval. Nothing reaches an employee or a customer without passing that review, and roles control who can do what at each step.
-
Stage 3: Translate
An approved record is written twice: once for a frontline employee who needs to act, and once for a customer who needs to understand. Same intelligence, different reading level and different detail.
-
Stage 4: Intervene
Approved guidance is published to the audiences an institution has chosen, so the message reaches people while the threat is still current.
-
Stage 5: Learn
A pilot records what was published, to whom, and what the institution observed. That is how the next cycle improves — and how a pilot produces a defensible decision.
Two views of the same approved intelligence
One record, reviewed once, published twice. The synchronization is the value: the employee and the customer are working from the same facts at the same time, so the conversation between them does not start from a mismatch.
Employee View
Written for the person taking the call, with more operational detail.
- What the customer is likely to describe
- Questions that help confirm what is happening
- Frontline response guidance, aligned to your procedures
- When to escalate, following your existing escalation path
Frontline response guidance describes how to talk with a customer about a scam pattern. It does not instruct an employee on account actions, holds, filings or case decisions — those follow your institution's own procedures and systems.
A controlled pilot, not a platform rollout
The pilot is deliberately small, bounded, and reversible, so an institution can evaluate 180Angles Intelligence without taking on integration risk.
Limited audience
A defined group of employees and, where the institution chooses, a defined customer audience. Not an enterprise deployment.
Defined timeline
A fixed start and end agreed in writing, with a scheduled review rather than an open-ended engagement.
No core-banking integration
The base pilot is designed to run without integration into core banking systems and without customer account data.
Institution separation
Each institution's configuration and records are kept separate. Nothing from one institution is visible to another.
How a pilot reaches a decision
A pilot is only useful if it ends in a defensible yes or no. The measurement plan is agreed with the institution before the pilot starts, so nobody is negotiating the definition of success afterwards.
- Agree the questions. What would the institution need to see to consider this worth continuing?
- Agree the measures. Which of those questions can honestly be answered inside a limited pilot, and which cannot.
- Run the pilot. Governed publishing to the defined audiences over the defined period.
- Review together. What was published, what employees and customers reported, and what the institution observed.
- Decide. Continue, adjust, or stop — with the institution owning its own data throughout.
Any outcome data belongs to the institution. We would publish or cite it only with your written approval, and only in the form you approve.
Direct answers
No. 180Angles Intelligence complements existing fraud systems; it does not replace them. It does not monitor transactions, score risk, or sit in any authorization path. It addresses the communication gap between what your institution knows about emerging scams and what your employees and customers understand about them.
No. 180Angles Intelligence does not make transaction, AML, SAR, case-management or law-enforcement decisions, and it is not designed to. Those decisions stay entirely with your institution and its existing systems and people.
The base pilot is designed to run without core-banking integration and without customer account data. Intelligence flows outward — from published sources, through governed review, to guidance. Exact data boundaries are agreed in writing before any pilot begins.
No. 180Angles Intelligence is actively developed and is offered through a controlled pilot pathway. We are not claiming bank certification, production banking deployment, or compliance with any standard we have not verified with you. If a claim like that matters to your evaluation, ask us directly and we will tell you exactly where things stand.
No, and we will not claim it. Attributing a prevented loss to any single intervention requires evidence the institution holds and validates. If a pilot produces that evidence, it is yours, and we would only ever cite it with your written approval.
Start with a conversation, not a commitment.
An institutional briefing is a working session: what your frontline teams are seeing, where the communication gap sits, and whether a limited pilot would answer a question worth answering.