As we saw last year by simply perusing headlines, fraud in Canada is no longer a sideshow, it’s a full-blown epidemic. As I discussed on BNN Bloomberg’s Trading Day, financial cybercrime in Canada is growing faster than in the U.S. and Europe, the statistics are as disturbing as they are stark. (If you missed the segment, you can watch it here: BNN Bloomberg interview).
The Size of the Problem
According to the Canadian Anti‑Fraud Centre (CAFC), in 2024 Canadians reported losses of $643 million to financial fraud.
That may sound like a lot for Canada because it is unprecedented, but here’s the kicker: CAFC estimates those reported losses represent only up to 5% of the real damage. If that's the case, we’re likely talking about $12 billion+ in real losses in 2024. While the overall figures for 2025 have not yet been released, I am fairly certain that losses will have increased for reasons absolute (because the trend is amplified by technology and available data) and relative (because more people are more likely to report, compared to years past).
Indeed, the trend isn’t flattening out. The pace of growth is nearly 300% since 2020. Around the world, numbers published by UK Finance (particularly investments scams and Authorised Push Payment fraud) and the FBI's IC3 centre (ramp-and-dump stock fraud).
One thing is increasingly obvious: it is now almost impossible to differentiate between plain vanilla fraud and the cyber variety. Should we even bother making a distinction when every type of financial crime is enabled by computing resources in one way or another?
To wit: in the Canadian Cyberfraud Handbook (2017, Thomson Reuters), I defined cyberfraud as:
Any unconscionable, dishonest, or deceptive act or omission that uses computer technologies or digital connectivity to defraud the public (or any person) out of assets, property, money, a valuable security, or a service, including via common digital channels such as mobile connectivity or Internet messaging used to manipulate someone into handing over something of value.
The Government’s Proposed Changes
As The Star reported in Estella Ren’s Oct. 20, 2025 article, the federal government plans to introduce Canada’s first-ever National Anti-Fraud Strategy alongside a new Financial Crimes Agency.
Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne says the strategy will push banks, telecoms, and tech companies to “step up” their counter-fraud efforts. The Bank Act will be amended to:
- Require banks to detect and prevent consumer fraud
- Obtain express consent before enabling risky account functions
- Report fraud data to regulators
- Support a new Economic Abuse Code of Conduct for protecting victims whose finances are controlled or exploited by others.
It’s a long-awaited move. As I told The Star,
“The government’s anti-fraud plan finally treats financial crime as a national economic threat, not just as a consumer issue or a nuisance, as it’s been seen in the past.”
But I also warned that,
“The real test will be to build a collaborative layer between banks, telecom companies and regulators to share fraud intelligence in real time. Unless that coordination exists, having a new agency risks becoming yet another layer of bureaucracy.”
Will it work?
Here’s where I press some reality checks.
- Strategy without accountability equals wallpaper. A national framework is fine, but unless it comes with real teeth, measurable targets, transparent reporting, strong enforcement and resourcing, it may just be another glossy brochure.
- A new agency is directionally promising, but the devil’s in the launch. Creating a dedicated Financial Crimes Agency is the right idea, but it must operate fast, smart, with deep tech capacity, inter-agency cooperation, and real world boots on digital ground. If it’s bogged down by bureaucracy or under-funding, fraudsters will just chew through the gaps.
- Bank-centric reforms matter, but fraudsters don’t just operate in banks. Yes, requiring banks to get express consent or disable features is a step. But fraud moves through telecoms, social-media, online marketplaces, cryptocurrency, cross-border flows, identity services. Unless the strategy covers all those vectors, the banks alone will be the canary in the fog.
- The 5-10 % reporting rate remains the killer caveat. If most victims don’t file reports, our data is a lie of omission. Unless the strategy includes strong mechanisms to encourage reporting (reduce stigma, simplify reporting, protect victims), we’ll still miss the real scope, and response will always lag.
- Prevention must match enforcement. Awareness campaigns are good; deterrents (risk of capture, asset recovery, criminal sanctions) are essential. Fraud thrives when probability of detection and punishment is near zero. The new measures must raise that probability.
- Metrics matter. By 2026, Canadians should expect to see not just “we launched this or that” but concrete metrics: fraud losses down X%, recovery rate up Y%, average victim time to resolution reduced, account-feature misuse down Z%. Without metrics, we get hype.
So will these proposals work? They can work if implemented vigorously, expansively, and with transparency. But it’s not automatic; fraudsters will exploit any crack fast.
What Will It Take for Government Initiatives to Be Considered Effective?
For Canadians to believe the game is changing, and for us to actually see a break from fraud in 2026, here’s what needs to happen:
- Visible decline in victim losses
Not just “losses reported” but actual losses: the reported number goes down, the average per-victim loss goes down, recovery improves. - Improved reporting and coverage
The “only 5-10 % of losses reported” figure cannot persist. Reporting must rise. Victims must feel safe, supported, and confident that reporting leads to action. - Rapid and public prosecutions / asset recoveries
Fraud must stop feeling like no-risk. Public headlines: “Fraud ring busted, assets recovered, victims compensated” not just announcements of agencies forming. - Cross-sector coordination and systemic action
We must see telecoms, tech platforms, banks, regulators, law-enforcement working in sync. If banks are reforming but telecom companies still allow spoof-calls unchecked, fraud festers. - Transparent metrics and accountability
The government must publish clear KPIs. For example: “In 2026, we aim to reduce fraud-related losses by X%,” and then report on them quarterly/annually. - Educated and empowered public
Victims are human beings, not stats. The strategy must include victim supports, rapid reversal options, accessible help, and public education so that Canadians actually recognise and avoid scams. - Built-in adaptation to evolving threats
Fraud is not static. AI-generated voice clones, deep-fake video, automated chat-bots posing as bank reps: these are real. If our systems legislate for “2010 fraud-models” we’ll be swamped. The agency must be future-proof.
The Bottom Line
Yes, Canada is finally acting. The national strategy, new agency, bank rules. All that is progress. But let’s not kid ourselves: this will be a long game, not a sprint. If we sit back and say “we’re safe now”, we’ll go back to the false sense of security we have been struggling with for the past couple of decades.
If Canadians are going to finally get a break from cyber-fraud in 2026, it might not necessarily be in the form of lower fraud losses. We need reporting numbers to go up, well known fraud losses to go down, shared stories of recovery, and systems catching up faster than criminals. Otherwise, all we’ll have is one more government press releases with a smiling bureaucrats followed by more claims of increasingly 'sophisticated' exploits causing 'unexpected' loss increases.
So yes, 2026 could be the year things shift. But it will only happen if we report them, demand measurable change, share results and hold the powerful to account. Fraud doesn’t care about good intentions and authoritative rhetoric. It cares about gaps, weak links, time-to-victim, and effective detection. Let’s make sure Canada closes the gaps by reminding people to avoid saying 'what's the point in reporting it, the money's gone' and 'who is listening anyway, I've moved on'.
Don't move on. Make your voice heard. Your opinion counts.
