Most financial crime prevention strategies rest on a utilitarian principle: design controls for the greatest good for the greatest number. This idea, rooted in the work of philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, shaped much of modern law. Policies are judged “good” if they protect the majority, even if some individuals are left at risk.

In fraud prevention, we see the same logic play out. Controls are designed for the average customer, the digital native, the one with the latest smartphone and strong Wi-Fi. If 90% are safer, the system is declared a success.

But criminals are quick to notice the gaps. And those gaps often open under the feet of the most vulnerable.

The Problem with Majority-First Design

• Digital exclusion: What happens when the customer doesn’t have a smartphone for biometric checks?
• Socio-economic barriers: What if your “multi-factor authentication” requires devices or data plans people can’t afford?
• Cognitive or physical disabilities: How does someone with memory issues, visual impairments, or dexterity challenges navigate layered security?

From a utilitarian lens, these edge cases are “acceptable” risks. From a criminological lens, they’re precisely where offenders move in. Criminals exploit asymmetries – where systems assume ability, resources, or access that some customers simply don’t have.

Why Philosophical Foundations Matter

Bentham’s utilitarianism aimed to create laws that maximised happiness for the majority. Mill refined it by recognising the need to protect individual rights. That tension remains with us today: should financial systems be optimised for efficiency and broad protection, or adjusted to account for those most at risk?

“The greatest good for the greatest number” is the central principle of utilitarianism, an ethical theory founded by Jeremy Bentham. It means that the morally right action is the one that produces the most happiness or well-being for the largest number of people. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where the morality of an action is judged by its outcomes, aiming to maximise overall pleasure and minimise pain”

In fraud prevention, if we lean too heavily on Bentham’s majority-rule logic, we end up with efficient systems that leave vulnerable groups disproportionately harmed.

Designing Out Crime, Inclusively

Designing out financial crime doesn’t mean perfection for everyone, everywhere. But it does mean building fail-safes for those who can’t easily use the standard tools.

Alternative pathways -Secure, human-assisted options for those who can’t navigate digital-only flows.

Equity lens Alternative pathways -Secure, human-assisted options for those who can’t navigate digital-only flows.

Proportionate controls – Safeguards that flex with customer capacity, not just transaction value. Testing new systems not only for fraud resilience, but for accessibility across socio-economic and cognitive contexts (With the groups you are designing for!)

Criminology helps here by reframing “edge cases” as high-value crime targets. What looks like a minority problem is often where the majority of fraud losses occur.

A Call to Action

Fraud prevention for the greatest good cannot mean “fraud prevention for the greatest number only.” Criminals exploit the cracks left by majority-first design, and customers most in need of protection are left exposed.

Designing out financial crime requires going beyond utilitarian shortcuts. It means building systems that are safe for the many and resilient for the few who are most at risk.

Because if crime thrives where vulnerability lives, then protecting the vulnerable protects us all.