Compliant, complicit or confused? Navigating personal and professional orbits in Authorised Push Payment Fraud

Individuals who are deceived into authorising fund transfers to fraudsters have often faced criticisms for negligence, and in some cases, devastating financial consequences. In the UK, new regulations have fundamentally shifted liability for losses arising from Authorised Push Payment Fraud (APPF), with banks and payment firms being required to reimburse fraud victims from October 2024. As consumer advocates applauded the move, industry lobby groups argued that they risk introducing unintended consequences for the UK’s financial sector.<br/><br/>Within this contested terrain of oppositional interest groups, a cadre of regulatory professionals are charged with implementing new regulations into institutional policies. As private citizens as well as corporate insiders, who on one hand benefit from new fraud protections, and on the other, are entrusted to advance commercial objectives, these professionals occupy the scene of tension often passing unnoticed. <br/><br/>This study is a phenomenological inquiry into how these professionals make sense of regulatory change in APPF, and their perception of congruence or conflict between their professional and personal identities, obligations and interests. It deploys autoethnography, diary solicitation and collaborative interviewing methods to reveal the lived experience of regulatory professionals, and to foreground how experience is used to inform normative judgment of victim blameworthiness and institutional responsibility. <br/>