Looking back over 2009, now that it has drawn to a close, we see that there has been a true awakening on the part of European banking institutions and financial organisations in terms of the devices and equipment that can be used to counter attempted fraud. There has been an obvious shift in how the market thinks, and this has undoubtedly been driven by the economic difficulties as well as by advances in the services offered. We have identified five key phenomena that characterise this shift and are set to intensify during the course of 2010.

The first phenomenon is that UK regulations calling for public disclosure of losses to the UK Payment Administration have an impact on the way UK banks set up their fraud strategy and cause the adoption of a more effective and more informed position on the fraud types that are on the increase. Banking institutions have grasped the idea that losses associated with fraud (which used to be classified as general operating expenses) could actually be far better contained. Therefore, the UK financial institutions in particular will appreciate the need to anticipate more types of fraud that might increase in the future and plan accordingly. Since this obligation was introduced, they have been under pressure to improve their detection rates year on year. For example, the total amount of fraud acknowledged by the UK's Big Four banks equates to £39 million per half-year (approximately €64m).

The second phenomenon is the expanding number of fraud calls resulting from an increasing range of financial services, demanding a more complex and coordinated arsenal of countermeasures. This expansion goes hand in hand with the diversification of payment methods (PIN codes, microprocessors, card-not-present transactions, etc.) and the growth of worldwide networks, which are making it even harder to track fraud. By definition, fraudsters do not announce when and how they are going to attack. Fraudsters like to attack from different directions and so institutions need defence systems that are flexible, adjustable and capable of responding in real time. It is time for financial institutions to harmonise their systems with a view to achieving global monitoring and control of transactions.

The third phenomenon is that the technologies have finally matured and solutions such as true real-time monitoring, enterprise cross-channel systems and enterprise investigation case management tools are now able to bring about a significant reduction in the number of instances of attempted fraud. The direct impact of this is that fraudsters who come up against a well-defended system are now turning to more vulnerable institutions or seeking out new targets. In our view, the French banks are, for example, more susceptible to attacks than their British counterparts, who are more advanced in terms of the solutions being deployed.

The fourth phenomenon is the fact that the current crisis is unleashing a new wave of fraudulent attacks, not only outside, but also within the banking and financial institutions. This trend comes to the fore whenever there is a crisis: as soon as there are signs of cracks in the economy and the already precarious footing of employees, investors or shareholders looks as though it might be undermined, these groups are more likely to use illegal means in order to maintain their standard of living and prevent any potential loss of personal assets. It is a similar story when it comes to the problem of internal fraud, which relies on insiders who are ideally placed to know the ins and outs of the market, its impact on what they do and who are bound to be tempted by the ease with which they are able to access the networks.

The final phenomenon is the immediacy with which scandals come to public attention. Incidents such as the Kerviel affair in France and the Madoff affair in the USA seriously undermine the confidence of customers and markets. After all, we all know that confidence is the cornerstone of our entire financial structure. Any deficiencies in data security lead to an immediate backlash from the public, which can prove even more devastating than any direct losses resulting from fraud. The current suspicion surrounding the lack of transparency on the part of key players does not help the situation and that is why we are urging our customers and partners to adopt a clear stance by expressing their desire to fight fraud.

So what does the future hold? In tomorrow's world, those institutions that are not equipped with high-performance global protection systems will thankfully be the exception rather than the rule. And in the longer term, say in 10 years' time, professionals will most likely look back and laugh at the current level of procrastination and hesitation, including at the simplicity of both the services offered and the fraud attacks. We say this because we are certain that the decisions that are being taken now to protect assets will be proven right within a very short space of time. Ultimately, it is a question of the institutions safeguarding their own well-being, their own good name and the global economy:  If the recent scandals in the USA, in Europe and the Near East were to result in a crisis of confidence, it would be difficult to quantify the scale of the consequences, other than to say that it would be utterly catastrophic.