When a pension scheme contacted the son of a deceased member, the case initially appeared straightforward.

He confirmed his father had died and said he was the member’s only child. With no obvious reason to question the information, the scheme could easily have continued its entitlement review based on his account alone.

But it wasn’t the full story.

When Heka mapped the deceased member’s family network, we identified other surviving children – people who had not been disclosed and whom the scheme may otherwise never have known existed.

What appeared to be a simple beneficiary case had exposed a significant risk: a potential beneficiary attempting to position himself as the sole surviving child.

For trustees, this is the uncomfortable reality behind some deceased-member cases. Finding one relative does not necessarily mean that the full family has been found.

A contact is not the same as a complete family picture

When a member dies, schemes often begin with the information already held on file: an expression of wish form, a historic address, a named spouse or the details of one known child.

If that person responds, the case can feel as though it is moving towards resolution. But the first relative reached is only one source of information– and they may not know, remember or choose to disclose the member’s complete family circumstances.

Families are rarely as simple as the records suggest. Members may have:

• Children from previous relationships
• Estranged relatives
• Family members who have changed their names
• Children or siblings living overseas
• Grandchildren who may need to be considered
• Relationships that were never recorded by the scheme

In some cases, the information provided may be incomplete through honest mistake. In others, as our investigation suggested, someone may have a financial reason to leave another relative out.

The challenge for trustees is not simply to locate someone connected to the deceased member. It is to establish a sufficiently complete and evidenced picture of the family before making an entitlement decision.

The risk grows across large deceased-member portfolios

A single complex case can often be escalated for specialist investigation. The operational difficulty becomes much greater when a scheme is managing tens, hundreds or even thousands of deceased-member records.

Each case may require the team to answer a series of questions:

Who are the surviving relatives? Are there other children or family branches that have not been disclosed? Are the contact details still current? Has anyone moved overseas? What evidence supports the relationships identified?

Trying to resolve these questions manually, one case at a time, is slow and resource-intensive. It can also lead to inconsistent outcomes: some cases receive extensive investigation, while others depend heavily on the quality of the information already held or supplied by the first person contacted.

Older cases can be particularly difficult. Contact details may be obsolete, family structures may have changed, and relatives may now be spread across several countries. Without a systematic way to reconstruct the family network, important people can remain invisible.

This creates three connected risks for schemes:

• Benefits may be distributed without all potential beneficiaries being identified.
• Cases may remain unresolved because the available member data appears insufficient.
• Trustees may lack the supporting evidence needed to demonstrate how the family was identified and reviewed.

From tracing an individual to mapping the family

Traditional tracing often focuses on finding a named person. Family tree tracing begins with a different question:

Who else should the scheme know about?

Heka starts with the deceased member and reconstructs the wider family network around them. Depending on the case, this may include a spouse or partner, children, siblings, grandchildren and relatives living overseas.

For each portfolio, Heka can provide:

• A verified family network identifying potential beneficiaries
• Current contact information for located relatives
• Identification of relatives living outside the UK
• Supporting evidence for the relationships found
• Clear findings to support the scheme’s own entitlement review

The aim is not to make the trustee’s decision. It is to give trustees a more complete and accurate evidence base on which to make it.

This distinction matters. Family circumstances can be complicated, and entitlement decisions remain subject to the scheme’s rules and trustee discretion. But those decisions are only as informed as the family picture available at the time.

What the undisclosed children changed

Returning to the original case, Heka’s findings did more than produce additional names.

They changed the basis of the review.

Without independent family tree tracing, the scheme might have proceeded on the assumption that the son was the deceased member’s only child. Once the other children were identified, the trustees had a more complete view of the family and could investigate the case appropriately before reaching a decision.

It is a strong example of why beneficiary identification should not rely solely on what one relative says– even when that person appears credible and the case initially seems uncomplicated.

The greatest risk is not always an untraceable person. Sometimes, it is the person the scheme does not yet know it needs to trace.

A portfolio-wide approach to deceased-member reviews

For schemes holding large portfolios of deceased members, family tree tracing can be applied across the full population rather than reserved only for individual cases that have already become problematic.

This allows schemes to:

• Progress more deceased-member cases in parallel
• Identify missing branches of a family before contacting potential beneficiaries
• Prioritise cases requiring deeper investigation
• Reduce reliance on unverified statements from individual relatives
• Create a clearer evidence trail for entitlement reviews

Instead of waiting for inconsistencies to emerge case by case, schemes can develop a more complete view of each deceased member’s family from the outset.

Because when a relative says, “I’m the only one,” the scheme should be able to verify whether that is really true.

Managing a portfolio of deceased members? Heka can map and verify family networks at scale, helping your team identify potential beneficiaries and move entitlement reviews forward with greater confidence.

‍

An enterprise-grade fraud stack is not a product. It is a latency-constrained decisioning system in which multiple layers – data collection, identity validation, enrichment, scoring, and decisioning – operate as a single flow. In most transaction environments, that entire loop runs in under 300 milliseconds for transaction decisions, and only marginally longer for onboarding.

The challenge is not assembling the stack. Most institutions already have the core components in place, often across multiple vendors and internal systems. The challenge is understanding how those components interact in practice – and where the system produces decisions that appear well-supported, but are not.

How Fraud Decisions Are Produced

A fraud decision is not generated by a single model or rule. It is the result of a sequence of stages, each contributing a different type of signal or constraint.

At a high level, the system collects observable signals, validates identity claims, enriches those signals with external data, applies probabilistic scoring, enforces deterministic rules, and aggregates all outputs into a final decision. Cases that fall outside clear thresholds are escalated, and outcomes are fed back into the system to continuously refine performance.

This flow is consistent across financial institutions, even where implementation details differ . What varies is the relative strength of each layer, and the degree to which each one contributes meaningful signal to the final decision.

The 8 Layers of the Fraud Stack

In practice, this decisioning flow can be broken down into eight functional layers:

1. Signal Collection
The system captures all observable inputs at the point of interaction, including device fingerprinting, IP intelligence, behavioral biometrics, and identity data. These signals form the raw input for all downstream analysis.

2. Identity Verification (IDV)
Identity attributes are validated against trusted sources such as credit bureau headers, SSA records, and sanctions lists. This establishes whether the identity exists and meets regulatory requirements.

3. Data Enrichment
External data sources are used to expand the identity profile. This includes email intelligence, phone intelligence, address validation, and consortium-based signals that provide additional context beyond the initial claim.

4. Risk Scoring
Machine learning models transform raw and enriched signals into probabilistic risk scores. These models typically target specific fraud types, including application fraud, synthetic identity fraud, and account takeover.

5. Rules Engine
Deterministic rules enforce policy and known fraud patterns. These include hard blocks (e.g., sanctions matches), velocity thresholds, and mismatch conditions that cannot be fully captured by models.

6. Orchestration & Decisioning
All signals, model outputs, and rule evaluations are aggregated into a final decision – approve, review, or decline – through a centralized decisioning layer.

7. Step-Up & Case Management
Cases that fall into intermediate risk bands are escalated through additional verification (e.g., biometric checks, OTP) or routed to human investigation workflows.

8. Feedback & Model Governance
Confirmed fraud outcomes, false positives, and analyst decisions are fed back into the system to retrain models, refine rules, and monitor performance over time.

This architecture is broadly consistent across the industry. The presence of these layers, however, does not guarantee effective decisioning.

A Practical View of Where Each Layer Contributes (and Where It Breaks)

The following simplified view highlights how each layer contributes to the final decision, and where its limitations typically emerge:

This view is intentionally reductive. Its purpose is not to describe the system exhaustively, but to make visible where signal strength and decision confidence can diverge.

Where Modern Fraud Stacks Fail

Failures rarely occur because a layer is absent. They occur when a layer produces an output that appears sufficient, but lacks underlying depth.

An identity may pass bureau and SSA validation, present no device or velocity risk, and return acceptable enrichment signals. Yet the identity may still lack coherence across time – no consistent footprint, no reinforcing signals, and no evidence of persistence.

This is the central gap.

Most stacks are effective at confirming that an identity exists. Many can confirm that a user is physically present. Far fewer can determine whether the identity behaves like a reliable individual over time.

Structural Drivers of These Gaps

These limitations are not purely technical. They are structural.

Latency constraints limit the ability to incorporate deeper or slower data sources. Scale requires reliance on generalized models rather than case-specific analysis. Cost and conversion pressures reduce tolerance for additional friction or enrichment calls.

As a result, systems tend to emphasize:

• structural validation (existence)
• reactive signals (prior exposure)

Both are necessary. Neither is sufficient to fully resolve identity risk.

Why Fraud Stacks Differ in Practice

The “perfect” fraud stack is a myth. In practice, every stack reflects a set of trade-offs – between latency, cost, scale, and risk tolerance. Different institutions prioritize different parts of the system:

From Architecture to Evaluation

Understanding the structure of a fraud stack is necessary, but not sufficient. The more important task is evaluating how the stack behaves under real conditions.

Key questions include:

• Which layers are driving final decisions?
• Where is the system relying on structural validation alone?
• Which signals appear present, but are not materially influencing outcomes?

Fraud does not typically exploit missing components. It exploits the assumptions created by partial signal coverage.

Next: Evaluating the Stack in Practice

This report provides a structural view of the modern fraud stack. In the accompanying evaluation guide, we extend this framework to:

• assess the relative strength of each layer
• identify signal gaps and over-dependencies
• map vendor capabilities across the stack
• and isolate the conditions under which structurally valid identities continue to pass controls

Follow us to be notified when the full evaluation guide is released.

‍

A recent data review identified deceased members still recorded as active – including deaths dating back to 2002.

A recent pension data cleanse for a large UK industrial defined benefit scheme identified that approximately 2% of members were deceased, including several individuals whose deaths dated back more than twenty years.

Two members recorded as active in the scheme records were found to have died in 2002.

For large defined benefit schemes, discrepancies of this scale can represent a material number of member records requiring validation before insurer pricing can proceed.

No administrative exception had been raised. The discrepancy only became visible once member records were validated against external sources.

These findings illustrate how member data inaccuracies can remain embedded within scheme records for extended periods without triggering operational alerts.

Insurer due diligence

When schemes approach buy-in or buy-out transactions, insurers undertake detailed due diligence on the member population. Confidence in the integrity of scheme data therefore becomes an important consideration.

Insurers typically review several areas, including:

• mortality status
• member identity validation
• geographic location of members
• completeness of contact records
• accuracy of benefit entitlements

Where information cannot be independently validated, additional verification work may be required before pricing can be confirmed. In some cases this can extend transaction timelines or introduce further assumptions into pricing models.

The Pensions Regulator also emphasises that trustees are responsible for maintaining complete and accurate member data as part of effective scheme governance.

Why data gaps occur

Pension schemes operate over long time horizons. Member records may remain in administrative systems for several decades and often pass through multiple administrators and technology platforms.

Over time, several structural issues can arise. Members may pass away without the scheme being notified, particularly where contact with the scheme has been lost.

In England and Wales alone, over half a million deaths are registered each year, according to the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS). Reconciling long-standing member records against this scale of national mortality data is therefore an important element of maintaining accurate scheme populations.

Increasing international mobility also reduces visibility within domestic datasets. Addresses and contact details may remain unchanged for extended periods, and historical system migrations can introduce inconsistencies across records.

These issues do not necessarily affect day-to-day administration but can become visible when scheme data is examined more closely during transaction preparation.

External validation sources

To address these risks, schemes increasingly supplement internal records with additional verification sources such as:

• Civil registration data, including GRO death records
• Probate filings and estate notices
• Online obituary publications
• Open-web signals, including professional networks and social media activity

Platforms such as Heka help consolidate these signals into structured intelligence. This allows schemes to validate member records, identify mortality indicators, and improve confidence in the accuracy of their member population.

Conclusion

Undetected deaths in scheme records illustrate a broader issue: member data can deteriorate silently over time.

Routine administrative processes may not surface these discrepancies. However, when schemes approach buy-in or buy-out preparation, such gaps can become operationally and financially relevant.

Early validation of member data can therefore reduce uncertainty, support insurer due diligence, and improve readiness for endgame transactions.

Heka has joined Winmark’s PensionChair Network as a Technical Partner.

Winmark convenes senior leaders across sectors through curated executive networks. The PensionChair Network brings together trustee boards and senior pensions professionals across the UK to share insight, address governance challenges, and strengthen scheme oversight.

As Technical Partner, Heka will provide member tracing, data enrichment, and identity verification capabilities to PensionChair members. This includes supporting schemes in resolving incomplete records, tracing overseas members, and addressing complex data quality challenges where traditional UK data sources may be limited.

Heka’s approach combines global open-source intelligence and structured digital footprint analysis to deliver verifiable, explainable outputs that trustees can rely on in fulfilling their governance responsibilities.

The partnership formalises Heka’s engagement with the PensionChair community and expands its collaboration with UK pension leaders.

Further information about upcoming sessions and member engagement will be shared through PensionChair communications and Heka's Linkedin.

‍

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

‍

Heka Raises $14M to bring Real-Time Identity Intelligence to Financial Institutions

Windare Ventures, Barclays and other institutional investors back Heka’s AI engine as financial institutions seek stronger defenses against synthetic fraud and identity manipulation.

New York, 15 July 2025

‍

Consumer fraud is at an all-time high. Last year, losses hit $12.5 billion – a 38% jump year-over-year. The rise is fueled by burner behavior, synthetic profiles, and AI-generated content. But the tools meant to stop it – from credit bureau data to velocity models – miss what’s happening online. Heka was built to close that gap.

Inspired by the tradecraft of the intelligence community, Heka analyzes how a person actually behaves and appears across the open web. Its proprietary AI engine assembles digital profiles that surface alias use, reputational exposure, and behavioral anomalies. This helps financial institutions detect synthetic activity, connect with real customers, and act faster with confidence.

At the core of Heka’s web intelligence engine is an analyst-grade AI agent. Unlike legacy tools that rely on static files, scores, or blacklists, Heka’s AI processes large volumes of web data to produce structured outputs like fraud indicators, updated contact details, and contextual risk signals. In one recent deployment with a global payment processor, Heka’s AI engine caught 65% of account takeover losses without disrupting healthy user activity.

Heka is already generating millions in revenue through partnerships with banks, payment processors, and pension funds. Clients use Heka’s intelligence to support critical decisions from fraud mitigation to account management and recovery. The $14 million Series A round, led by Windare Ventures with participation by Barclays, Cornèr Banca, and other institutional investors, will accelerate Heka’s U.S. expansion and deepen its footprint across the UK and Europe.

“Heka’s offering stood out for its ability to address a critical need in financial services – helping institutions make faster, smarter decisions using trustworthy external data. We’re proud to support their continued growth as they scale in the U.S.” said Kester Keating, Head of US Principal Investments at Barclays.

Ori Ashkenazi, Managing Partner at Windare Ventures, added: “Identity isn’t a fixed file anymore. It’s a stream of behavior. Heka does what most AI can’t: it actually works in the wild, delivering signals banks can use seamlessly in workflows.”

Heka was founded by Rafael Berber, former Global Head of Equity Trading at Merrill Lynch; Ishay Horowitz, a senior officer in the Israeli intelligence community; and Idan Bar-Dov, a fintech and high-tech lawyer. The broader team includes intel analysts, data scientists, and domain experts in fraud, credit, and compliance.

“The credit bureaus were built for another era. Today, both consumers and risk live online. Heka’s mission is to be the default source of truth for this new digital reality – always-on, accurate, and explainable.” said Idan Bar-Dov, the Co-founder and CEO of Heka.

‍

About Heka
Heka delivers web intelligence to financial services. Its AI engine is used by banks, payment processors, and pension funds to fill critical blind spots in fraud mitigation, credit-decision, and account recovery. The company was founded in 2021 and is headquartered in New York and Tel Aviv. 

Press contact
Joy Phua Katsovich, VP Marketing | joy@hekaglobal.com

We’re proud to announce our partnership with ZEDRA Governance to help pension schemes tackle one of the sector’s biggest challenges: tracing missing members.

Following a successful pilot where Heka’s AI-powered tracing identified 50% of previously unreachable members, ZEDRA will now offer our technology to clients via a dedicated architecture, bringing scale and speed to both small and large schemes.

“Reuniting members with their full retirement benefits is a core fiduciary duty,” said Mark Stopard, Head of Proposition Development at ZEDRA Governance. “We’re excited to see the results of this initiative as part of our commitment to helping clients solve the issue of lost pensions.”

Heka's technology helps schemes locate current contact details, life status, and digital signals even when records are outdated or fragmented. By partnering with ZEDRA, we’re enabling better member engagement, reduced risk, and readiness for future reforms.

“Many of the toughest challenges in the pensions sector start with missing data,” said Max Lack, Business Development Manager at Heka. “Solving that unlocks everything else- from dashboard readiness to retirement adequacy.”

Read the full announcement on ZEDRA’s website.

‍

We’re excited to announce that Heka is now live on NayaOne, the leading fintech and data marketplace for financial institutions.

Through the NayaOne platform, banks and insurers can now securely trial Heka’s external customer intelligence engine- accessing real-time, explainable insights for credit, fraud, onboarding, and more, all within a sandboxed environment.

This marks a major step in making Heka more accessible to innovation teams looking to accelerate decision-making with trustworthy, real-time web intelligence.

We’re proud to support Dalriada Trustees in tracing victims of pension fraud using our AI-driven identity and contact resolution tools. The collaboration has already reunited members with their rightful benefits where traditional tracing methods failed. Read the full article published by Professional Pensions to learn more about how our partnership is helping deliver real outcomes in complex fraud scenarios.

‍

👉 As featured in Professional Pensions

Heading 1

Heading 2

Heading 3

Heading 4

Heading 5

Heading 6

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.

Block quote

Ordered list

1. Item 1
2. Item 2
3. Item 3

Unordered list

• Item A
• Item B
• Item C

Text link

Bold text

Emphasis

^Superscript

_Subscript

Heading 1

Heading 2

Heading 3

Heading 4

Heading 5

Heading 6

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur.

Block quote

Ordered list

1. Item 1
2. Item 2
3. Item 3

Unordered list

• Item A
• Item B
• Item C

Text link

Bold text

Emphasis

^Superscript

_Subscript