Investment fraud losses in the UK have reached record levels, raising fresh concerns over the growing use of artificial intelligence, cloned websites and social media adverts to target savers and investors.

New figures from UK Finance show that investment scam losses reported by banks and finance firms rose to £221.5m in 2025, up 40% on the previous year. The trade body said investment scams accounted for 38% of all authorised push payment scam losses last year, making them one of the most damaging forms of financial fraud.

The figures come as banks, regulators and law enforcement agencies warn that criminals are becoming more sophisticated. Fraudsters are using artificial intelligence to create convincing websites, clone the branding of legitimate financial firms, mimic voices, produce fake celebrity endorsements and send large volumes of personalised messages to potential victims.

The result is a fraud market that looks increasingly professional. Many scams no longer resemble crude email cons. Instead, they can appear to involve slick investment platforms, polished social media campaigns, fake trading dashboards and persuasive advisers claiming to offer access to gold, property, cryptocurrency, carbon credits, wine or other high-return opportunities.

For consumers, the danger is clear. For banks, technology platforms and regulators, the question is who should be responsible for stopping fraud before money is transferred.

Record losses from investment scams

According to UK Finance’s Annual Fraud Report, criminals stole £1.28bn through payment fraud in 2025, an increase of 4% on the previous year. Authorised push payment fraud, where victims are manipulated into sending money themselves, rose by 19% to £576.4m.

Investment scams were among the biggest drivers of that increase. UK Finance said investment fraud reached its highest level ever recorded in its data, with losses of £221.5m.

These scams often involve victims being persuaded to move money into what they believe is a legitimate investment. In reality, the investment either does not exist, is not what it claims to be, or is controlled by criminals.

The sums lost can be life-changing. Unlike many purchase scams, where the individual loss may be smaller, investment fraud often involves savings, pensions, inheritance money or long-term funds built up over many years.

City of London Police, the national lead force for fraud, has also reported a sharp rise in investment fraud. Its figures show that victims reported losses of £879.8m in 2025, equivalent to £2.4m a day, with 34,673 people reporting investment fraud to Report Fraud.

The UK Finance and police figures are not directly the same because they measure different parts of the fraud landscape. UK Finance’s figures are based on payment fraud reported by its members, while police data reflects reports made to the national fraud reporting system. Together, however, they point in the same direction: investment fraud is rising and the losses are substantial.

AI is changing the fraud landscape

The use of AI is making investment scams harder to detect.

Fraudsters can now produce realistic images, voice recordings, videos, adverts, websites and written communications at scale. A fake investment website can be created quickly. A convincing email campaign can be generated cheaply. A cloned voice or deepfake video can make a scam appear to involve a trusted public figure or financial expert.

This matters because many traditional warning signs are becoming less reliable. Poor spelling, badly designed websites and obvious inconsistencies used to help people spot scams. AI reduces those flaws.

Scammers can also use AI to personalise messages. Instead of sending generic offers, they can tailor communications to a person’s interests, location, job, age or investment history. That makes scams feel more credible and harder to dismiss.

The Bank of England recently warned about AI-generated scams after deepfake videos involving public figures were circulated online. Similar tactics have been used in fake investment adverts featuring well-known personalities, including financial commentators and celebrities.

The risk is not only that AI creates fake content. It is that AI creates synthetic trust. A victim may believe they are dealing with a credible person, a legitimate company or a regulated opportunity because every visible part of the interaction appears professional.

Social media and online platforms under pressure

A major part of the debate is the role of technology platforms.

UK Finance and Reuters have reported that many authorised push payment scams start online, including through social media adverts, messaging apps and search platforms. Fraudsters use these channels to find victims, promote fake opportunities and move conversations into private channels where pressure can be applied.

Banks argue that they are often left dealing with the consequences after the fraud has already been enabled elsewhere. They want technology and telecoms companies to take greater responsibility for detecting and removing scam content, verifying advertisers, and preventing fraudulent accounts from reaching users.

That argument has gained force because UK banks and payment firms now face mandatory reimbursement rules for many authorised push payment scams. Since October 2024, victims can be reimbursed up to £85,000 in qualifying cases. UK Finance said banks returned £354.3m to victims in 2025.

The reimbursement regime has strengthened consumer protection, but it has also intensified debate over where liability should sit. Banks say it is unfair for them to carry much of the cost when scams often begin on technology platforms or through telecoms networks. Consumer groups argue that victims should not be left bearing losses where sophisticated criminals have manipulated them.

Technology companies have generally pointed to their own anti-fraud systems and reporting tools, but regulators and financial institutions continue to argue that more is needed.

A difficult balance for banks

For banks, investment fraud presents a difficult operational problem.

On one hand, banks are expected to detect suspicious payments, challenge customers, block transactions where appropriate and reimburse victims in many cases. On the other hand, authorised push payment fraud involves customers willingly instructing their bank to send money.

That creates tension. If banks block too many transactions, customers may complain that legitimate payments are being delayed or refused. If banks allow payments through, victims may later argue that the warning signs should have been spotted.

Investment scams are particularly challenging because victims may genuinely believe the investment is real. They may have been coached by criminals on what to say if questioned by their bank. They may have seen fake returns on an online dashboard or even withdrawn small amounts to build confidence before investing larger sums.

This is why prevention matters. Once money has been moved through mule accounts, crypto wallets or overseas networks, recovery can be difficult.

Regulators target finfluencers and fake firms

The Financial Conduct Authority has also stepped up action against illegal financial promotions and unauthorised investment activity online.

In April 2026, the FCA announced a global week of action against illegal “finfluencers”, referring to social media personalities who promote financial products or investment schemes without proper authorisation. The regulator said it issued 2,329 warnings about unauthorised or potentially scam firms and individuals in 2025.

The FCA has warned that dealing with unauthorised firms increases the risk of being scammed and may leave consumers without access to protections such as the Financial Ombudsman Service or the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.

The regulator advises consumers to check whether a firm is authorised using the FCA Firm Checker and to watch for warning signs such as unexpected contact, pressure to act quickly, promises of high returns, secrecy, flattery or claims that an opportunity is exclusive.

These warnings are familiar, but the challenge is that scams are becoming more persuasive. A fraudulent firm may appear to have a professional website, glossy documents, fake reviews, cloned contact details and convincing staff.

That is why regulators increasingly stress the need to verify independently, rather than relying on links, adverts or documents supplied by the person selling the investment.

Online Safety Act may change platform duties

The Online Safety Act is expected to increase pressure on online platforms to tackle fraudulent advertising and scam content. The Government’s fraud strategy says future duties will require certain services designated by Ofcom to use proportionate systems and processes to prevent users encountering paid-for fraudulent adverts.

Ofcom is expected to consult on the detail of these measures around summer 2026, with fraudulent advertising duties expected to come into force in 2027. Platforms could face significant fines for non-compliance.

However, this timetable means the strongest online fraud advertising rules are not yet fully in force. Banks and consumer groups argue that the delay leaves a gap while criminals are moving quickly and using AI to scale attacks.

The challenge for policymakers is to create rules that reduce scam exposure without causing excessive barriers for legitimate businesses, advertisers and financial firms. Too little regulation risks leaving consumers exposed. Too much friction could increase compliance costs and slow digital advertising, financial promotions and customer acquisition.

For now, the direction of travel is clear: online platforms are likely to face increasing responsibility for fraud that begins on their services.

Why investment scams are so damaging

Investment fraud is especially damaging because victims often lose more than money.

Many people targeted by investment scams are trying to improve their financial security. They may be seeking better returns on savings, preparing for retirement, investing an inheritance, or trying to protect themselves from inflation.

Scammers exploit that hope. They often build relationships over time, presenting themselves as advisers, brokers, trading specialists or successful investors. Some victims may be allowed to see fake profits before being persuaded to commit more money.

When the fraud is finally uncovered, victims may feel embarrassed, ashamed or reluctant to report it. This under-reporting means the true scale of investment fraud is likely to be higher than official figures suggest.

There is also the risk of recovery fraud. City of London Police has warned that criminals sometimes target previous victims again, pretending to be lawyers, police officers or recovery specialists who can retrieve the lost money for an upfront fee.

This makes investment fraud a long-tail harm. The initial loss can be severe, but the emotional, financial and practical consequences can continue for years.

What businesses should take from the figures

The latest fraud figures are not only a consumer issue. They are also a business issue.

Financial services firms face higher fraud-prevention costs, reimbursement obligations, regulatory scrutiny and customer-support pressure. Technology platforms face growing calls for stronger identity checks, advertiser verification and faster takedown of scam content. Telecoms firms face pressure over fraudulent calls and messages.

Professional services firms, accountants, lawyers and advisers also have a role. Clients may ask about investment opportunities before committing funds, or after they suspect something has gone wrong. Advisers need to be alert to warning signs and able to direct clients towards official checks.

Employers should also be aware that AI-enabled fraud is not limited to consumer investment scams. Similar tactics can be used in invoice fraud, CEO impersonation, supplier fraud and fake payment instructions.

The broader lesson is that fraud prevention can no longer be treated as a narrow banking problem. It is now a cross-sector risk involving finance, technology, telecoms, law enforcement, regulators, businesses and consumers.

A market built on trust

Investment markets depend on trust. Savers need confidence that firms are real, advice is authorised, platforms are secure and payments are protected.

Fraud undermines that trust. It can make people reluctant to invest, harder for legitimate firms to win customers, and more difficult for regulators to promote financial inclusion and long-term saving.

The rise of AI makes this more urgent. The same technology that helps legitimate firms communicate, automate and improve customer service can also help criminals look professional, credible and personal.

That does not mean people should avoid investing. It does mean that investors need to slow down, verify independently and be especially cautious of unsolicited opportunities promising unusually high returns.

For policymakers, the challenge is to stop fraud earlier in the chain. Reimbursement helps victims after the event, but it does not prevent the emotional harm, disruption and wider economic cost of fraud.

A growing test for the digital economy

The rise in investment fraud shows the darker side of the digital economy.

Online platforms have made it easier for legitimate businesses to reach customers, for investors to access information, and for financial services to become more convenient. But the same channels are also being used by criminals to reach victims at scale.

AI has accelerated that problem by lowering the cost of creating convincing fraud.

The immediate figures are stark: record investment scam losses in UK Finance data, rising APP fraud, and hundreds of millions more reported to police. But the bigger issue is structural. Fraudsters are exploiting the gaps between banks, platforms, telecoms providers, regulators and consumers.

Closing those gaps will not be simple.

Banks can strengthen payment checks. Platforms can improve advertiser verification. Regulators can act against illegal promotions. Police can pursue criminal networks. Consumers can be encouraged to pause and verify. But no single part of the system can solve the problem alone.

Investment fraud has become an industrial-scale threat. The response will need to be equally coordinated.