Composite scenario · Banking Tier-2

Fraud detection on 50 million transactions per month, AML compliant.

A Tier-2 European bank consolidates fraud detection, anti-money-laundering screening and audit-grade reporting on a single sovereign platform. 100 fraud analysts and 20 risk officers query 50 million transactions a month across five federated catalogs, with DORA, GDPR and ACPR evidence packs generated on demand.

Volume 50 M transactions / month
Catalogs 5 federated catalogs
Users 100 fraud analysts + 20 risk officers
Compliance DORA · GDPR · ACPR audit ready
Deployment Sovereign EU cloud, single-tenant
StorageCatalogQueryCompute BILabAIOrchestration GovernanceIdentityObservabilityCompliance

Detection, screening and audit could not stay in separate silos.

Fraud detection, AML screening, and regulatory reporting had each grown into a separate stack with its own catalog, its own audit trail, and its own scheduling engine. Cross-team investigations required joining datasets across three vendor consoles, each with its own access model. Audit cycles took weeks because evidence had to be reconstructed from logs scattered across the three silos.

  • 50 million card and transfer transactions ingested every month.
  • Five operational catalogs across core banking, card issuing, payments and partner feeds.
  • 100 fraud analysts running ad-hoc investigations, 20 risk officers running periodic risk runs.
  • DORA operational resilience, GDPR data subject rights, ACPR sectoral audit obligations.
  • Detection models retrained quarterly with explainability requirements per ACPR guidance.

One federated query layer, one policy engine, one audit trail.

AKKO federated the five operational catalogs behind a single SQL endpoint without physically copying the data. The Catalog layer aggregated lineage, PII tags and ownership in one place. The AI layer let analysts ask natural-language questions on top, with every prompt and every generated query persisted in the audit trail. The Lab layer supported model retraining with reproducible notebook runs. The Compliance layer turned audit evidence requests into a single artefact pull.

  • Query — Federated SQL across five catalogs, one endpoint, predicate pushdown.
  • Catalog — Unified PII tags, lineage and ownership across all sources.
  • Storage — Hot incidents land as open-format tables; cold history stays in source.
  • AI — Natural-language to SQL with scope-first policy, prompt audit log.
  • Lab — Reproducible notebook runs for fraud-model retraining, signed runs.
  • Governance — Single policy engine for row, column, project and analyst scope.
  • Identity — SSO via the bank's identity provider, no shadow accounts.
  • Observability — Metrics, traces, decision logs emitted in OCSF format.
  • Compliance — Evidence pack generation in minutes for DORA, GDPR and ACPR cycles.
We stopped chasing audit evidence across three consoles. The platform produced the complete pack from a single artefact pull, with lineage included.

Conservative measured improvements.

Outcomes below are conservative estimates derived from our internal benchmark across three early production deployments with comparable workload shapes. They are framed as ranges we are confident in defending, not as marketing peaks.

~40%
Total cost of ownership reduction

Versus proprietary cloud data platforms, according to our internal benchmark across comparable workload shapes.

~5 min
Audit evidence pull

Down from approximately three weeks of manual reconstruction across three siloed stacks.

5 → 1
Catalogs unified

Five operational catalogs federated behind a single SQL endpoint, no physical data copy required.

100%
Prompt and query audit

Every natural-language prompt and every generated query persisted, OCSF format, retained for the regulatory period.

120
Personas onboarded

100 fraud analysts and 20 risk officers, SSO via the bank's identity provider, no shadow accounts.

Framing. This page describes a composite scenario built from three early production deployments with comparable workload shape (Tier-2 European bank, fraud and AML use case, federated catalog setup). Names, exact volumes and exact timing are intentionally generalised. Outcome numbers are conservative estimates from our internal benchmark, not externally certified figures. The framing follows the same product-led posture as our other case studies.

Working on a similar fraud or AML perimeter?

Tell us about your catalogs, your analyst count and your audit obligations. We return a calibrated quote within five business days.

Contact us for a quote