The DOI matches its Crossref record.
An Advanced Regulatory Technology Framework for Improving Financial Transparency and Fraud Reporting Accuracy
Open accessAbstract
Financial transparency and fraud detection have become critical concerns for regulators, financial institutions, and stakeholders in the modern digital economy. The rise of complex financial instruments, cross-border transactions, and sophisticated fraud schemes necessitates the development of advanced regulatory technology (RegTech) frameworks capable of ensuring accurate reporting, real-time monitoring, and compliance enforcement. This paper presents a conceptual and systematic approach for designing a RegTech framework aimed at improving financial transparency and enhancing fraud reporting accuracy. It synthesises developments in artificial intelligence, blockchain, machine learning, data analytics, and digital reporting, highlighting their roles in strengthening regulatory oversight. The framework emphasises the integration of risk-based analytics, automated compliance monitoring, and continuous feedback mechanisms to improve decision-making and reduce operational inefficiencies. A critical literature review is conducted to explore recent advances in fraud detection, transaction monitoring, audit automation, and regulatory compliance. The study identifies current gaps in regulatory approaches and proposes an integrated framework that combines technological, procedural, and regulatory perspectives. This paper contributes to the growing body of knowledge on RegTech and provides practical guidance for regulators, financial institutions, and technology developers seeking to implement robust, accurate, and transparent financial monitoring systems.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An organization that can interpret evidence and adapt its allocation patterns accordingly is more likely to remain effective than one that relies on fixed assumptions or habit.
“An organization that can interpret evidence and adapt its allocation patterns accordingly is more likely to remain effective than one that relies on fixed assumptions or habit (Anioke & Atima, 2025, Bello, et al., 2025, Lawal & Oduleye, 2025, Oluwadele, et al., 2025).”
From Conceptual Model for Financial Sustainability and Strategic Resource Allocation in Nonprofit Organizations (2025) · cites this paper as Bello, et al., 2025
The Conclusion says dynamic risk scores help regulators and financial institutions direct investigative resources where needed, improving regulatory effectiveness. The Discussion says adaptive monitoring remains effective and has an advantage over static, rule-based systems. The citing sentence extends this financial-compliance framework to organizations generally, which the paper does not establish. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNonprofit sustainability is shaped more by external conditions than by internal priorities.
“shaped more by external conditions than by internal priorities.This weakens the nonprofit's ability to pursue a coherent, mission-centered model of sustainability”
From Conceptual Model for Financial Sustainability and Strategic Resource Allocation in Nonprofit Organizations (2025) · cites this paper as Bello, et al., 2025
Section 3.6 discusses how a RegTech framework must align with internal policies and regulatory requirements, and the Conclusion discusses financial transparency and fraud reporting. Neither addresses nonprofit sustainability or compares the influence of external conditions with internal priorities; searches for those terms found no relevant passage in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Adepeju Deborah Bello, Oghenemaiga Elebe, Nafiu Ikeoluwa Hammed, Precious Osobhalenewie Okoruwa, Oladapo Fadayomi, Gbenga Olumide Omoegun (2025) An Advanced Regulatory Technology Framework for Improving Financial Transparency and Fraud Reporting Accuracy. Int j adv multidisc res stud 5(6):1948-1958.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Aliliele, C., Eboh, E. E., & Odihi, F. (2025) · International Journal of Scientific Research in Computer Science Engineering and Information Technology · doi:10.32628/cseit251117154
Metadata
- Authors
- Deborah Bello, A., Elebe, O., Hammed, N. I., Osobhalenewie Okoruwa, P., Fadayomi, O., & Olumide Omoegun, G.
- Affiliations
- Barclays (United Kingdom) (GB)
- ORCID
- Elebe, Oghenemaiga
- Venue
- International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies
- Publisher
- OPRA Publications
- Published
- 2025-12-27
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1948-1958
- ISSN
- 2583-049X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W7128597433
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 8.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Research and Studies (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › General Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Digital Transformation in Financial Services
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management Information Systems › FinTech, Crowdfunding, Digital Finance
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Blockchain Technology Applications and Security
- Keywords
- regulatory technology, financial transparency, fraud detection, transaction monitoring, automated compliance monitoring, audit automation, blockchain, artificial intelligence, regulatory oversight, financial reporting
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review