How to Measure the Success of Anti-Scam Centres
By Dr. Kimmo Soramäki (Founder & CEO)
In recent years, a new generation of national initiatives has emerged to combat the growing threat of scams and financial fraud. Anti-Scam Centres designed to track, freeze, and recover stolen funds, are being established across jurisdictions as the first line of defense for digital consumers. These initiatives represent a global shift from institution-by-institution fraud response toward national utilities and coordinated jurisdiction-wide infrastructure.
Malaysia’s National Scam Response Center (NSRC) is often cited as a model for others, bringing together the country’s central bank, police, payment system operator, and commercial banks in a joint initiative. Singapore has established its Anti-Scam Command to unify intelligence and response. Australia’s National Anti-Scam Centre coordinates public-private efforts to disrupt scams at scale. In Indonesia, Jordan, and parts of the Gulf, national fraud portals are being planned or implemented to support early detection and faster fund recovery.
But as these centres are set up, a critical question arises: how do we measure success? For every new Anti-Scam Centre, two questions are raised early in its development.
First: How can we justify the investment before the centre is operational? This is the business case question often posed by ministries of finance, project sponsors, and donors. These stakeholders want to know the expected returns, both financial and non-financial, and how they compare to current levels of fraud detection and recovery.
Second: Once the utility is running, how will we track whether it’s working? This is the performance question—essential to managing resources, coordinating institutions, and sustaining political and operational support over time.
Failing to address these questions weakens governance and delays implementation. Answering them credibly improves accountability, accelerates institutional buy-in, and ultimately leads to stronger outcomes for the victims and the financial ecosystem as a whole.
Examples of what can be measured
There is no single metric that captures the success of an Anti-Scam Centre. Instead, several complementary indicators should be considered. Each provides a different lens on how well the centre is delivering its mandate.
1. Amount of Funds Frozen or Recovered
This is the most direct and visible metric. It answers the question: How much of the victim’s money did the system help protect or return?
In Malaysia, for instance, the share of fraud cases resulting in full fund earmarking increased 60-fold after the NSRC went live. In particular, this metric has the benefit of being directly measurable by the National Fraud Portal, including in real-time and case-by-case, and is visible during the track & trace and freezing workflows across all stakeholder banks. It serves as a direct proxy for the eventual recovery, which may only take place after a period of time, due to recovery being the result of criminal justice.
2. Case Closure Time
Speed matters. The faster an investigator can trace the funds and coordinate with institutions, the higher the chance of recovery. Case closure time (measured from the point of victim reporting to final resolution) is a key proxy for efficiency. A successful Anti-Scam Centre often shows substantial reductions in average closure time.
Malaysia’s NSRC, for example, has reduced closure times by over 75%, allowing the same team to handle significantly more cases. Accurate measurement requires consistent workflows and timestamps at key stages (intake, trace, freeze, resolution).
3. Other Efficiency Gains from Case Management
Modern fraud response requires coordination across dozens of institutions. Before national centres were established, each financial institution handled fraud reports independently, often duplicating effort and delaying response.
With shared case management systems, we can measure:
The number of institutions involved per case
Time saved per institution per case
Number of case officers needed per case
These metrics show the centre’s value in harmonizing action across banks, law enforcement, and regulators.
National Anti-Scam Centres are reshaping fraud response, but how do we measure their success? Explore key metrics from fund recovery to public trust that define their impact.
4. Volume and Quality of Scam Reports
An Anti-Scam Centre is only as effective as the data it receives. Monitoring the volume of incident reports (e.g. from call centres, AI chatbots, or PSPs) and their quality (completeness, relevance) gives insight into public trust and platform usability. At the same time, quantitative measurement and statistics shed light on pathways exploited by criminals, e.g. a preference to use a particular financial institution due to weaker risk controls.
5. Identification of Mule Accounts and Networks
Anti-Scam Centres help identify not just the destination accounts of stolen funds, but the broader networks they pass through. This includes money mules—individuals who wittingly or unwittingly receive and forward scam proceeds.
Tracking how many mule accounts were flagged, investigated, and deactivated through the system is essential. This also supports preventive measures and customer risk scoring. Data limitations and legal restrictions on information sharing can pose challenges, but collaboration with law enforcement can help.
6. Downstream Investigations and Arrests
While harder to quantify, the ultimate goal is not just freezing funds, but disrupting criminal networks. Some centres report on the number of law enforcement actions initiated based on referrals or data from the system. This is an essential but complex metric, as it requires close cooperation with prosecutors and privacy-compliant logging of evidence chains.
7. Public Awareness and Trust
Scam response is not just a technical task: it’s a public trust issue. Measuring public awareness, confidence, and satisfaction with the anti-scam system (e.g. through surveys or feedback mechanisms) gives a broader view of its societal value.
Indicators like reduced complaint volumes over time, increased self-reporting, and positive media coverage all support the legitimacy of the centre.
