A Guide to Strong Anti-Fraud and Anti-Scam Policies Across the States

Fraud and scams are organized, technology-enabled crimes that cross state lines and exploit communications networks, online platforms, financial institutions, government programs, and trusted identities. In 2025, consumers reported approximately $16 billion in total fraud losses to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)—including $3.5 billion from imposter scams.

States can reduce losses through a whole-of-government strategy that links prevention, reporting, intelligence sharing, disruption, recovery, and victim support. ABA supports a whole-of-ecosystem response, including state and local Financial Crimes Intelligence Centers (FCICs), in coordination with the FTC, Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Federal Bureau of Investigation Internet Crime Complaint Center (FBI IC3), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), Secret Service, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and the Department of Justice (DOJ).

What State Leaders Can Do Now

Absent legislation, governors can also address fraud by appointing a senior fraud coordinator, convening a cross-agency task force, including FCIC budget funding, and directing state agencies to coordinate investigations and prevention.

No state needs to start from scratch. Leaders can build upon proven models, begin with the steps that fit their current authority and resources, and add capabilities over time. This guide outlines the core elements of strong state leadership on fraud prevention, pairs them with examples of where states are already leading, and provides resources to gauge the scale of fraud in your state.

Elements of Robust Leadership on Fraud Prevention

Establish a Financial Crimes Intelligence Center

An FCIC is a state fusion center—or state-operated intelligence hub—linking law enforcement, prosecutors, regulators, financial institutions, telecommunications providers, online platforms, retailers, and victims services partners to monitor and quickly address widespread fraud and protect consumers. FCICs are strengthened by a senior level fraud and scam prevention coordinator who can work across state and federal agencies.

Case Study

Texas FCIC Texas developed a statewide FCIC responsible for collecting, analyzing, and sharing intelligence related to:

• Check fraud
• Card fraud
• Electronic payment fraud
• Skimming operations
• Fuel theft
• Organized financial crime schemes

Coordinate FCC Enforcement It is important to ensure attorneys general and/or appropriate state agencies maintain an enforcement partnership with the FCC to share information and jointly investigate illegal robocalls, robotexts, caller-ID spoofing, and AI-enabled voice scams. This includes coordinating with the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau to identify those illegally spoofing the name, brand, or number of legitimate companies, and bringing enforcement actions against these criminal callers.

Enact State Legislation

Extend state guardrails to address fraud across telecommunications and online platforms. States can impose criminal penalties on voice service providers that originate, transmit, or facilitate illegally spoofed calls, and leverage unfair and deceptive trade laws to curtail social media and other online fraud. Recent ABA polling found 92% of voters support lawmakers taking action against scams. This bipartisan support creates an opportunity to strengthen fraud prevention and enforcement through measures that increase telecommunications and online-platform accountability, protect vulnerable adults, and provide dedicated investigative resources.

Case Study: Nebraska Online Advertising Protections

Some states have expanded deceptive-practices laws to set direct requirements for platforms. Nebraska enacted provisions directing online platforms to better filter bad actors from their networks.

Under these provisions, covered platforms accepting payment for advertising must:

• Verify the identity of advertisers.
• Maintain impersonation detection and mitigation programs.
• Investigate reported suspected fraudulent advertising within five business days and remove the advertisement within another five business days after determining it is fraudulent.
• Use automated and manual fraud detection systems.
• Provide a clear mechanism to report suspected fraudulent advertisements and notify the reporting party of the investigation’s outcome.

Consider Vulnerable Adult Fraud Protections and Transaction Hold Laws

States across the country have authorized financial institutions to temporarily delay suspicious transactions involving suspected financial exploitation of older or vulnerable adults, a process known as a transaction hold. This legal authority is critical to enabling financial institutions to intervene when they identify potential exploitation and help prevent funds from being lost. States can establish or strengthen these policies, including appropriate liability protections, flexible hold periods, trusted-contact procedures, staff training, and coordination among financial institutions, adult protective services, and law enforcement.

Beyond transaction holds, states can also review criminal and civil statutes addressing financial exploitation, misuse of powers of attorney, exploiting consumers to transfer illicit funds (known as money mules), and the repeat targeting of older victims.

Case Study: Alabama Hold and Delay Law

States like Alabama are increasingly adopting financial transaction hold laws to address elder financial exploitation. These laws can provide banks with time to investigate and, where appropriate, engage trusted contacts, law enforcement, or adult protective services.

Learn more through the FTC’s comparison of state laws from October 2024 and the ABA Foundation’s Hold Law Survey Report.

Strengthen Enforcement, Including Postal Crime

In addition to developing new policies, states would benefit from expanding financial-crime, digital-forensics, and asset-tracing capacity. The U.S. Postal Inspection Service is a key partner for coordinating civil and criminal enforcement.

When reviewing existing laws on fraud and scam enforcement, assess policies addressing money mules, elder exploitation, identity theft, business identity and filing fraud, cryptocurrency kiosks, government impersonation, mail and check theft, and several other direct postal attacks.

Case Study: Minnesota Business Filing Fraud Prevention Act

Minnesota established an administrative process to investigate and remedy fraudulent business filings like those enabling unauthorized bank accounts, loans, and other fraud. The law:

• Authorizes the Minnesota Secretary of State to investigate allegations of fraudulent business filings and invalidate filings determined to be fraudulent.
• Establishes a declaration-of-wrongful-filing process with notice, an opportunity to respond, administrative determinations, and judicial review.

Support Federal Efforts

Alongside these state-led initiatives, federal policymakers are considering national policies to respond to the fraud crisis. State leaders can help inform the development of a national framework by sharing their experiences and perspectives with Congress.

Fraud takes different forms across states and communities, but these approaches offer policymakers practical options for strengthening prevention, coordination, and enforcement.

Additional Resources

To see the scale of fraud in each state, consider the following sources:

• FTC State-by-State Fraud Reporting Data
• FBI IC3 2025 Annual Report, State Reports
• Secure American Opportunity’s Fraud Impact by State

To learn more about how America’s banks are educating consumers about the many ways criminals try to access their accounts, visit BanksNeverAskThat.com.