Key insights:

• • • Real-time tax compliance has restructured the tax function — Dozens of nations now require structured invoice data in real time, with the EU mandating cross-border digital reporting by 2030. The traditional file-and-wait audit cycle is gone now, replaced by clearance regimes that can freeze multi-million-dollar invoices for nonconforming data.

    • Regulators have pulled ahead of the businesses they oversee — Tax authorities in mature CTC jurisdictions now arrive at audits with structured transaction data already processed by their own analytics. Government turnaround times that took months now take weeks, forcing multinational tax leaders to compress multi-year roadmaps into 12- and 18-month cycles to keep up.

    • The lessons travel beyond tax — There are two ways to lose this race: Outrun your own controls or surrender entirely. Both showed up in Las Vegas, and both will show up in every other regulated profession over the next decade.

LAS VEGAS — TheĚý sold out. A guest list that included tax directors from Amazon, Walmart, and Procter & Gamble, OpenAI’s tax department, the Big Four, ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę and every other major tax software provider in the market spent three days at the Aria with pool deck, casino floor, and restaurants worth lingering over all a few steps away.

The room had every reason to spend its evenings somewhere else other than a sunless conference room talking about tax. Yet almost no one did. They were too busy grappling with an arms race the corporate audit side had begun to suspect it was losing.

And it’s one they cannot afford to lose.

End of the traditional model

The arms race is real-time tax compliance, and it has dramatically restructured the ground beneath the tax profession in less than a decade. By April, more than 60 jurisdictions have moved or are moving to continuous transaction controls. Italy and Hungary were early; Poland, France, Belgium, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, India, and Singapore are now operational or imminent, and countries like Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates are on the way. The European Union has locked onto a 2030 deadline for cross-border real-time digital reporting and a 2035 backstop for harmonizing what’s left.

The traditional model — issue an invoice, file a return weeks later, audit when the auditor gets around to it — no longer exists in those jurisdictions. Tax authorities now see the transaction as it happens, validates it in structured form, and pre-fills the return on the taxpayer’s behalf.

What this new process has done to the tax function is fundamentally alter its structure in a way leaves practitioners reeling. The job used to be a craft of Excel, judgment, and institutional memory. Now, at the high end, it has become as much a data science problem as an accounting one.

The arms race is real-time tax compliance, and it has dramatically restructured the ground beneath the tax profession in less than a decade.

Attendees at TEI’s 2026 Tax Technology Seminar polled themselves on tooling, and the answers came back as a list of data pipelines that dozens of attendees seemed to favor: Alteryx, Power Platform, Snowflake, Databricks, Microsoft Fabric, & Palantir Foundry. These platforms are running agentic AI systems against historical filings, deploying validation agents to critique their own outputs, and using AI-driven image-to-text solutions to pull structured data out of state tax notices that never arrive in the same format twice. They are data integration pipelines in 15 minutes that would have sat in an IT queue for two months before being answered.

They have little choice as the stakes are far higher and the challenges far more demanding than they used to be. In a clearance regime, an invoice has no legal force until the tax authority returns its identifier. Did you submit the wrong VAT ID, malformed schema, or mismatched master data? Congratulations! Your invoice is rejected. That means the truck doesn’t move, the buyer doesn’t pay an invoice that may be in the millions of dollars and then the penalties stack on top. Italy, for instance, charges a fee of 70% of the disputed VAT.

And then there are the audits.

Outgunned

The audit isn’t an occasional event anymore. In government jurisdictions with mature continuous-transaction-control tax regimes, it is a conversation that started weeks before the auditor walked in, on data their analytics had already processed.

A speaker on a seminar panel led by Deloitte and ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę described the dynamic plainly: Tax authorities in those jurisdictions have arrived at audits already knowing more about the transactions than the companies and their in-house audit teams sitting across the table. Not because anyone is hiding anything, but because the data arrived at the tax authority in structured form, in real time, and the authority had run its analytics on it before the meeting was even on the calendar. One panelist said this represents “a shift from us preparing returns to us answering notices on the data that’s been shared.”

What the room kept circling around, however, was that regulators have not just kept pace with their counterparties, they’ve now pulled ahead. Singapore, one panelist noted, is doing more with AI than even major companies. Indeed, government turnaround times that used to take months are now closing in weeks, which is forcing multinational tax leaders to compress their multi-year roadmaps into 12- and 18-month cycles — not because they want to but because their counterparties already had.

The lesson that corporate tax functions have been forced to absorb is that there are two ways to lose this race, and both were on display at TEI’s 2026 Tax Technology Seminar as cautionary tales.

This asymmetry is structural, and that is what makes it an arms race rather than a transition. There is no version of this dynamic in which the company being audited wins by being more careful, more thorough, or more well-prepared at the end of the quarter. The advantage now accrues to the side with the fastest and cleanest pipelines, that runs the smartest AI, and that understands the way these increasingly complex systems interact. Increasingly, that winning side is the government. And, more alarming, this isn’t just a problem for this particular industry — tax just happened to get here first. However, it’s coming for everyone.

Two ways to lose

The lesson that corporate tax functions have been forced to absorb is that there are two ways to lose this race, and both were on display at TEI’s 2026 Tax Technology Seminar as cautionary tales. The first is to outrun your own controls. AI coding tools that let a tax analyst build a working data integration pipeline in 15 minutes are genuinely valuable; they also let that same analyst deploy something nobody else has reviewed, documented, or knows how to maintain. An OpenAI panelist conceded the point when an audience member asked about the security implications of vibe coding — clearly, a new capability is also a new problem.

The second way to lose is harder to talk about. One panelist described, to attendees’ general dismay, hearing of companies that have given up on compliance entirely — instead, they pad their numbers with a safety margin and treat the eventual audit as the cheaper of the two costs. The panel recoiled — one member responded with a flat “Do not do this.” However, the anecdote landed because it isn’t theoretical. When the gap between what regulators can see and what your team can produce becomes wide enough, surrender starts to look rational.

Playing to win

Of course, the attendees at TEI’s 2026 Tax Technology Seminar were not surrendering. If they were, they’d have been at the pool deep into their third cocktail. Or they’d have been on the casino floor or were about to catch an afternoon show. Instead, day after day, the tables filled, the exhibit hall ran hot, and the room was buying, listening, and building.

The game has changed and the stakes have risen — and the room is dead set on playing to win.

You can find more ofĚýour coverage of Tax Executives Institute events here

Key insights:

• • • Prediction markets sit in a regulatory gray zone — Prediction markets’ economic function often looks much closer to gambling than traditional finance.

    • That ambiguity creates an AML blind spot — This blind spot allows potentially weaker controls around KYC, source of funds, sanctions screening, and suspicious activity reporting.

    • Banks and payment processors should focus on actual risk, not labels — Reputational, legal, and financial crime risk exposure can arise long before regulators clarify the rules.

Prediction markets have grown into a multi-billion-dollar ecosystem, offering the ability to enter into a contract to predict the outcomes on everything from elections and sports games to economic data and weather events. Yet as these platforms expand, they operate in a regulatory gray zone that raises serious questions for banks, payment processors, and compliance professionals.

Yet, the classification question that regulators and financial institutions continue to debate is not merely academic. It determines whether prediction market platforms will face the same anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) obligations as casinos and sportsbook venues, or whether prediction markets can continue to operate with minimal compliance oversight. This distinction has real consequences for the financial system.

“Prediction markets are not just a classification problem, they represent a structural gap in how financial crime risk is currently understood and managed,” says James Lephew, Founder & CEO of , a Charlotte-based consulting firm that serves major gambling operators and financial institutions globally.

Clarification is required in classifying this sector

Prediction markets occupy an ambiguous middle ground. Market operators position their platforms as financial derivatives or forecasting tools rather than gambling venues, emphasizing price discovery and statistical analysis over chance-based wagering. A contract on the outcome of a presidential election or a sports event, they argue, reflects crowd-sourced probability estimates grounded in information aggregation, not gambling luck.

Yet the fundamental mechanics raise legitimate questions. A user who buys a contract predicting that a candidate will lose an election is, in economic terms, wagering money on an uncertain outcome. The distinction between betting on a football game and trading a contract on the outcome of that same game becomes difficult to defend from a regulatory standpoint — and this classification matters enormously.

The distinction between betting on a football game and trading a contract on the outcome of that same game becomes difficult to defend from a regulatory standpoint — and this classification matters enormously.

If prediction markets are treated as gaming operations, they trigger Title 31 obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act, including currency transaction reporting, suspicious activity reporting (SAR) requirements, and comprehensive KYC procedures. If on the other hand, prediction markets are classified more akin to financial markets, these requirements may not apply. Currently, many prediction market platforms claim financial market status, allowing them to operate outside gaming regulations and with potentially weaker AML controls.

There is a compliance gap

Without clear regulatory classification, prediction markets create a significant AML blind spot. Casinos must report cash transactions exceeding $10,000, conduct source-of-funds reviews, and maintain detailed customer profiles. Sportsbooks face licensing requirements, geolocation checks, and responsible-gaming safeguards. Prediction market platforms, by contrast, often operate with minimal reporting obligations.

This gap introduces concrete risks. Digital wallets and cryptocurrency channels can obscure the source of funds. Structuring and layering of sources become easier without robust verification, further clouding who exactly playing in these markets. Collusive trading through multiple accounts allows value transfer that may go undetected. And VPN use and foreign payment channels can enable sanctions evasion.

Further, without mandatory SAR reporting, suspicious patterns tied to money laundering, terrorist financing, or market manipulation may never reach law enforcement.

“What we’re seeing is an AML blind spot,” says Lephew. “Platforms enabling financial flows with characteristics of gambling, but without the controls that regulators would normally expect.” Until classification catches up with the technology, he adds, this blind spot remains open — and exploitable.

Why this matters for banks and processors

Banks and payment processors that support prediction market platforms may carry significant reputational and legal risk if they haven’t conducted thorough due diligence — and they cannot rely on a platform’s self-classification as a financial market or forecasting tool. Nevada and other jurisdictions are actively examining whether these platforms constitute gambling, echoing concerns from the American Gaming Association that products carrying similar economic risks deserve similar regulatory treatment.

If a product allows participants to wager on uncertain outcomes and creates risk that is substantially similar to gambling, it should face AML and customer identification requirements proportionate to that risk.

“Risk must be assessed based on how the product actually behaves, not how it is marketed,” Lephew explains. And that means evaluating whether a platform applies robust KYC procedures, verifies the source of deposits and beneficial ownership, screens against sanctions lists, reports SARs to the government, prohibits contracts on high-risk events such as assassinations or terrorism, and uses geolocation controls to block users in restrictive jurisdictions. Those answers matter far more than whatever label the platform chooses, Lephew says.

The path forward

Regulators have several options. One approach applies gaming regulations uniformly, treating all prediction markets with economic characteristics similar to gambling as gaming operations subject to Title 31. A second approach creates explicit financial market classification with statutory AML obligations and enhanced scrutiny of high-risk contracts. A third option adopts a tiered or risk-based framework, classifying contracts on lower-risk events such as economic data or weather under financial market rules, while sports and election markets could face enhanced scrutiny. Violent outcome markets would be prohibited entirely.

Regardless of which path regulators choose, the principle should be the same: Classification should follow economic function. If a product allows participants to wager on uncertain outcomes and creates risk that is substantially similar to gambling, it should face AML and customer identification requirements proportionate to that risk.

Financial institutions should not wait for regulatory clarity. They should apply rigorous due diligence now, treating prediction markets with a heightened level of scrutiny appropriate to their actual risk profile rather than their claimed legal status.

The goal is not to eliminate prediction markets, but to ensure they operate within a framework that prevents money laundering, terrorist financing, and market abuse. “If it looks like gambling, behaves like gambling, and carries the same financial crime risk, it should be regulated accordingly,” Lephew notes. “Anything less creates systemic exposure.”

You can find out more about the challenges financial institutions face in their anti-money laundering efforts here

Key insights:

• • • Protecting SNAP requires modernization and accountability — This includes providing chip-enabled cards, stronger monitoring, recipient education, retailer oversight, cross-agency coordination, and fair reimbursement for victims.

    • Skimming is a growing problem — In the context of financial fraud, skimming refers to the illegal capture of personal data, typically through concealed electronic devices placed over legitimate card readers.

    • The harm can be immediate and severe — If their food benefits are stolen through skimming, vulnerable households can lose essential food funds, deepening food insecurity in their community.

Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards serve as a critical resource for the millions of Americans who depend on the nation’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to keep food on the table. The typical SNAP household is low-income and often includes children, seniors, or individuals with disabilities, who have earnings that fall at or below the federal poverty level. Based on household size, income, and other qualifying factors, these families receive monthly monetary assistance to help cover basic nutritional needs at authorized retailers.

Think of an EBT card as a debit card specifically designed for food benefits. Recipients use it to access their monthly balance at approved stores, making the process straightforward and dignified. However, like any electronic payment system, EBT is not immune to exploitation. One of the most pressing threats is a type of fraud known as skimming, which puts vulnerable households at serious financial risk.

What is EBT skimming?

Skimming, in the context of financial fraud, refers to the illegal capture of personal data, typically through concealed electronic devices that are placed over legitimate card readers. In the case of EBT fraud, criminals generally install tampered card terminals to steal EBT card information, including account numbers and PINs.

Unlike most modern credit and debit cards, EBT cards still rely on magnetic stripe technology, not more secure embedded chips. This outdated system makes them especially vulnerable to cloning, or the creation of counterfeit cards that contain the victim’s account number and PIN. Once a thief captures the data, they can create these counterfeit cards and drain benefits almost immediately, often within minutes of the monthly benefit deposit.

The result is that much needed food benefits, meant to last an entire month, are stolen without warning or recourse.

Why is EBT skimming so devastating

The consequences of EBT skimming go far beyond financial loss. For recipients, the theft of SNAP benefits can have immediate and severe impacts on their household food security and well-being. Other reasons why this form of fraud is particularly harmful include:

• • • Irreplaceable funds — For low-income households, SNAP benefits represent a critical portion of their monthly food budget. Once stolen, these funds are often impossible to replace. Families may be forced to skip meals, rely on emergency food pantries, or divert money from other essential needs like rent or medicine.
    • Outdated security technology — Despite advances in payment security, most EBT cards still use magnetic stripes, which can be easily copied with inexpensive skimming devices. By contrast, EMV chip technology, standard on most consumer credit and debit cards, makes cloning significantly more difficult.
    • Speed and precision of theft — Thieves often time their attacks to coincide with the monthly benefit deposit cycle. Once benefits are loaded, stolen card data is used rapidly, sometimes within minutes, making recovery nearly impossible.
    • Targeting vulnerable populations — EBT skimming preys on some of the most vulnerable members of society, including seniors, disabled individuals, and families living paycheck to paycheck. Many recipients may not have the resources or knowledge to monitor account activity regularly or to lock their cards after use, leaving them at greater risk.

Beyond skimming: A broader challenge of fraud, waste & abuse

While skimming is a serious and visible form of EBT fraud, it is only one symptom of a larger systemic challenge that fraud, waste & abuse cause in federal benefit programs.

Other forms of fraud include: retailers trafficking in EBT benefits for cash, which is a violation of SNAP rules; misrepresentation of income or household size during application; duplicate or ineligible benefit issuance; and administrative errors that lead to overpayments.

Each instance, whether intentional or not, erodes public trust in the entire benefit system, strains limited program budgets, and diverts resources from those individuals who need them most.

With federal funding for social programs under constant scrutiny and subject to periodic budget constraints, it is imperative that every dollar is protected and used appropriately. Preventing fraud is not just about saving money — it’s about ensuring that limited public resources serve their intended purposes of reducing hunger and supporting economic stability.

How to prevent fraud, waste & abuse in SNAP

Addressing EBT skimming and broader program vulnerabilities requires a well-rounded strategy that features technology, policy, education, and oversight working together.

On the technology side, one of the most impactful steps forward would be transitioning EBT cards from outdated magnetic stripes to EMV chip technology. This upgrade alone would significantly reduce skimming risks, and federal investment in that infrastructure is a necessary part of making it happen. Alongside that, state and federal agencies should be leveraging data analytics and real-time transaction monitoring to flag suspicious activity, like multiple withdrawals across different locations within a short window of time.

Education also plays a bigger role than many people realize. A large portion of EBT users simply do not know how to protect themselves. Basic habits like covering the keypad when entering a PIN, routinely checking account balances, and reporting lost or stolen cards right away can go a long way in reducing exposure.

One of the most pressing threats is a type of fraud known as skimming, which puts vulnerable households at serious financial risk.

From an oversight perspective, the U.S. Department of Agriculture — the government agency that oversees SNAP — and state agencies need to conduct regular audits of authorized retailers and hold them accountable. Any retailer found engaging in trafficking or enabling skimming should face deauthorization and legal consequences as well. Equally important is making sure that victims of confirmed fraud are not left without recourse. Clear and consistent policies for replacing stolen benefits can help restore trust in the program and prevent the food insecurity that this type of fraud directly causes.

Finally, none of this works in isolation. Effective fraud prevention depends on strong coordination between state human services departments, law enforcement, financial institutions, and technology providers. Information sharing and joint task forces strengthen the ability to detect threats early and respond quickly when issues arise.

Protecting the safety net

SNAP is one of the nation’s most effective tools in the fight against hunger. However, its success depends on both integrity and accessibility. Skimming and other forms of fraud not only steal from individuals, but they also undermine confidence in the entire system.

Policymakers, administrators, and citizens must prioritize modernization, accountability, and victim protection. By addressing vulnerabilities like EBT skimming and reinforcing safeguards against waste and abuse, we can ensure that SNAP remains a reliable and secure resource for the millions of individuals who rely on it.

You can find out more about how public agencies are working to fight fraud in government benefit programs here

Key insights:

• • • Getting at the core legal question — In a case brought by defendant Ongkaruck Sripetch, the Supreme Court is deciding whether the SEC must prove investors suffered measurable financial loss before courts can order disgorgement, which would require fraudsters to give up illegal profits.

    • Why it’s high-stakes — Disgorgement is a major SEC enforcement tool — representing billions of dollars annually — so a new requirement to prove investor losses could sharply limit when and how much the SEC can recover.

    • How the justices seemed to lean (so far) — Questions at the argument before the Court suggested skepticism toward Sripetch’s position, with several justices asking why it would be an unfair penalty to take back ill-gotten gains and noting the practical difficulty of proving each investor’s exact loss.

If you’ve ever wondered how the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) actually gets money back after it catches a fraudster, one of its biggest tools, disgorgement, is now under the microscope. This week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in a case, Sripetch v. SEC, that sounds technical on paper but has at its core a simple question: When the SEC makes a fraudster give up illegal profits, does it have to prove that investors suffered measurable, out-of-pocket losses first?

The case centers on Ongkaruck Sripetch, who the SEC says pocketed illicit proceeds through a classic pump-and-dump scheme from 2013 to 2017. Pump-and-dumps often involve penny stocks in which a person will hype up the price of these thinly traded stocks, then sell into the price spike they caused and walk away richer. Other stock traders who bought into the hype are the ones left holding the bag.

Sripetch admitted violating securities law and, in his subsequent criminal case, was sentenced to 21 months in prison. Separately, in the SEC’s civil action, a federal court in California ordered Sripetch to repay more than $3 million in ill-gotten gains plus interest.

The Supreme Court case isn’t a serious argument against the SEC’s ability to seek disgorgement — numerous courts have recognized the remedy for years, and Congress has since written the SEC’s ability to pursue it into federal law. The core question in the case is narrower, yet crucial for the SEC’s mission. It asks whether the SEC must show that victims suffered pecuniary or economic harm before a court can order disgorgement. Federal appeals courts have split on that point, which is why the Supreme Court agreed to take the case.

What is disgorgement, exactly?

Think of disgorgement as a legal give it back order. If a person or company makes money by breaking the securities laws — say by manipulating prices, lying to investors, or running a Ponzi-style scheme — disgorgement is designed to strip the profits away from that wrongdoing and the wrongdoers. In theory, it’s not about punishing someone for being bad, rather it’s about making sure crime doesn’t pay.

In real markets, harm can be scattered across thousands of trades, mixed up with normal price swings, and hard to trace to one bad actor. Disgorgement, on the other hand, gives securities regulators a way to focus on the part that’s often the clearest: How much ill-gotten profit the fraudster made.

Indeed, that not a punishment framing is important because the SEC has other ways to punish those convicted of securities law violations — such as civil penalties, disbarment from serving as an officer or director, industry suspensions, and more. Disgorgement is supposed to be different — an action that aims at profits, not pain. The government’s position in the Sripetch case puts it bluntly: Disgorgement is meant to strip ill-gotten gains from wrongdoers, not to compensate victims for their losses.

And disgorgement is not a niche tool. The SEC regularly collects big sums of seized money through disgorgement. According to recent figures, the SEC obtained about $1.4 billion through disgorgement in fiscal 2025 (excluding certain amounts), and $6.1 billion the year before, which represented nearly three-quarters of its total financial penalties for that year.

Those numbers may help explain why this Supreme Court fight is being watched so closely: The outcome could either keep the SEC’s playbook intact or force it to do a lot more legwork before it can ask courts to order payback.

The arguments before the Court

Earlier this week, both sides argued before the Supreme Court as to the potential future use of disgorgement and what requirements the SEC might have to meet when requesting court to order it.

Sripetch’s argument — Lawyers for Sripetch told the Court that the SEC shouldn’t be able to get disgorgement unless it can show that investors actually suffered financial harm, such as a price drop caused by the fraud or some other measurable loss. If the SEC can’t prove that kind of harm, the lawyer argues, then making Sripetch pay money looks less like giving it back and more like an impermissible penalty that the SEC is not allowed to levy.

The government’s argument — Lawyers for the U.S. Justice Department, defending the SEC, said the proof-of-loss requirement makes no sense. Disgorgement, in their view, is about the defendant’s gains, not the victim’s losses. One government lawyer summed it up as a straightforward principle: Disgorgement is intended to ensure a defendant does not profit from their own wrongdoing.

At this week’s argument, the justices sounded (at least generally) more sympathetic to the government than to Sripetch. Justice Amy Coney Barrett pressed the defense on its basic logic: If the court is only taking away ill-gotten gains — money the wrongdoer was never entitled to — why is that a penalty at all? Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made a similar point, suggesting disgorgement would only feel like punishment when someone is forced to pay money that was rightfully theirs.

When Sripetch’s lawyer suggested the SEC should have to identify and prove each victim’s dollar loss, Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s response was basically, Why would anyone bother? If the SEC has to run a mini-trial on every investor’s exact harm just to reclaim the fraudster’s profits, disgorgement would be unworkable in many cases.

The practicality of that point is a big deal in securities fraud. In real markets, harm can be scattered across thousands of trades, mixed up with normal price swings, and hard to trace to one bad actor. Disgorgement, on the other hand, gives securities regulators a way to focus on the part that’s often the clearest: How much ill-gotten profit the fraudster made. The idea is deterrence-by-math — if you can’t keep the profits, the incentive to run the scheme shrinks.

The Supreme Court’s ruling, when it comes, could re-shape how the SEC negotiates settlements, litigates fraud cases, and talks about remedies and punishments going forward.

Still, some justices raised broader concerns about how disgorgement gets used in the real world, such as whether certain applications start to look punitive, or whether they raise questions about a defendant’s right to a trial by jury. However, the Court also seemed interested in deciding only the question of the requirement to prove victims’ losses and leaving those bigger constitutional debates for another day.

Why this matters (even if you aren’t the SEC)

If the Supreme Court agrees with Sripetch and requires proof of investor pecuniary harm, the SEC could face a higher hurdle in cases in which misconduct is real, but losses are tough to quantify on a trade-by-trade basis. That could mean fewer disgorgement awards, smaller ones, or more pressure to rely on classic penalties instead.

If the Court backs the government, however, disgorgement stays what it has largely been — a fast, flexible way to reclaim profits from securities fraud and a core part of how the SEC tries to keep the securities markets honest.

Either way, the ruling will shape how the SEC negotiates settlements, litigates fraud cases, and talks about remedies and punishments going forward. With the Court expected to issue its decision by the end of June, securities lawyers and stock market mavens will be keeping an eye on this case.

You can find more about the challenges facing the SEC here

Key takeaways:

• • • Q2 is a wound that heals if the war stops — Oil spikes, inflation revisions, and supply disruptions are painful but mostly reversible in a short-war scenario. The exception is insurance and risk premiums for Gulf maritime transit, which are permanently repriced.

    • Q3 is a wound that scars — Sustained oil at $130 per barrel changes household and business behavior in ways that don’t snap back. Recession probability crosses the coin-flip threshold and supply chain disruptions cascade into industries far from the Gulf.

    • Q4 is a different body — Even if the war ends, the global economy has rebuilt itself around the disruption. Trade routes, supplier relationships, and risk models have been permanently rewired, especially if there is nothing structural to prevent the Strait from closing again.

This is the second of a two-part series on the impact of the war with Iran as the conflict continues. In this part, we’ll walk through what a quarter-by-quarter economic scenario would look like if the war continues.

Previously, we made the case that the US-Iran war is unlikely to end quickly. The regime hasn’t collapsed, the asymmetric force controlling the Strait of Hormuz is nowhere near neutralized, and diplomacy seems dead on arrival. Most significantly, the United States military is escalating, not winding down.

While the first part of this series was about the military and diplomatic picture, this piece is about your balance sheet.

What follows is a quarter-by-quarter map of what a prolonged conflict means for the global economy, charted from now through Christmas 2026. We’ll cover how oil, supply chains, GDP forecasts will be revised in real time, and how disruptions that look temporary in Q2 could trigger a permanent rewiring of how the global economy moves goods, prices risk, and sources critical inputs.

Even if your company doesn’t import a single barrel of Gulf crude, you could still get hit by this. Indeed, if you’re plugged into the global economy like the rest of us, you’re going on this ride.

Q2 2026 (April–June): The wound that heals

If the war ends by the close of the second quarter on June 30, most of the damage is reversible — painful, but reversible.

Brent crude is up about 60% since before the start of the war when it was roughly $70 per barrel; and Capital Economics , prices could fall back toward $65 by year-end. The interim outlook from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) now to be 4.2% for 2026, up sharply from 2.8%, assuming energy disruptions ease by mid-year. If that assumption holds true, it’s likely we’ll be able to muddle through the pain.

Even in the most optimistic scenario, however, Q2 introduces disruptions beyond oil that most people aren’t tracking. The Gulf supplies roughly 45% of global sulfur, and Qatar produces around one-third of the world’s helium, which is essential for semiconductor manufacturing. Further, Qatar’s liquified natural gas (LNG) production was significantly damaged by Iranian strikes.

Even in the most optimistic scenario, however, Q2 introduces disruptions beyond oil that most people aren’t tracking.

Further disruptions in fertilizer supply chains could delay spring planting, which could ripple into agricultural yields well into 2027. These effects don’t snap back the moment oil flow normalizes; they have their own timelines.

And here’s the one thing that doesn’t reverse even in the best case — risk premiums. The Strait of Hormuz was priced as a chokepoint that would never actually close. So when it did, that repricing is permanent and will be felt across the world as risk around other too important to fail chokepoints is itself reevaluated and priced higher.

Q3 2026 (July–September): The wound that scars

If a Q2 end to the war represents a recoverable spike, a Q3 end is where the word structural starts showing up in the discussion.

Capital Economics models Brent at roughly $130 per barrel — or roughly 14% higher than where it is now — in a prolonged scenario. At those prices, the damage stops being abstract. And Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi estimates that every sustained $10-per-barrel increase . At $130 (nearly double pre-war levels) that’s approaching $2,700 per family. That is the kind of money that changes behavior.

In this case, Zandi says, especially if the cost of oil stays elevated for months — and by Q3, it would have. Moody’s recession probability model was pushing 50% in late-March when oil was $108 per barrel. At $130, the math speaks for itself.

Again, in this scenario, the damage fans out beyond energy. Fertilizer shortages hit crop yields, and helium disruptions cascade into semiconductors, automotive, and medical devices. The potential impact on AI-related manufacturing alone could spook investors already primed to see AI as a bubble. Capital Economics projects Eurozone growth at 0.5% and Chinese growth below 3%. Emerging markets could face forced rate hikes that deepen their own recessions.

This is the quarter in which contingency plans become operating assumptions. The question is no longer When does this go back to normal? —Ěýrather the question is whether normal is coming back at all.

Q4 2026 and beyond: The different body

Here’s what most forecasts don’t capture about a war that continues passed Q4: It almost doesn’t matter whether the war is still active or not. The damage has changed shape, and it’s no longer about what the conflict is doing to the global economy. Instead, it’s about what the global economy has done to itself in response.

Companies that spent Q2 and Q3 diversifying away from Gulf suppliers have now spent real money building alternatives. They are not going back to their previous pathways even if there is a ceasefire. The sunk costs make the reversal unthinkable, and the memory of this conflict makes it irrational. No supply chain director is walking into a boardroom to recommend re-concentrating risk in a chokepoint that closed once and might close again.

The prudent approach for companies remains clear. They should plan for the war to last into at least Q2, probably Q3, with structural effects persisting beyond.

Because, of course, it could close again. If Iran emerges weakened but intact, which is the most likely outcome per multiple intelligence assessments, the result is a hostile state with every incentive to reconstitute its asymmetric capabilities the moment the pressure lifts.

Companies are thus going to reroute their future supplies around the Strait rather than through it. High oil prices and the potential for global shortage will also further accelerate green energy initiatives or alternate fuel sources across the globe as oil security reenters geopolitical calculations. Most importantly, every organization’s supply chain will need a reevaluation in light of an increasingly dangerous world, with expensive secondary supply chains becoming more a necessity than a luxury.

That’s the real legacy of a war continuing past the end of this year. Not oil prices on any given day or even insurance premiums, but the permanent repricing of an assumption. The war didn’t just disrupt the flow of goods through the Strait of Hormuz, it broke the premise that some geographies were too big to fail and would be protected and kept open. Once that premise is now broken so thoroughly companies will need to reevaluate whether the concentration of risk in individual areas is a luxury they can afford. Many will find the answer to be no, resulting in an increased push to diversify risk away from single points of failure.

The planning imperative

Fortunately, the best-case scenario remains possible. However, it requires Iran accepting terms it has publicly rejected as existential, its navy being neutralized despite retaining significant asymmetric combat capability, a coalition materializing from countries that have refused to send warships, and mine-clearance operations succeeding with the deck stacked against them. Only then, we’ll see if civilian traffic is willing to risk billions of dollars that the clean-up job was done right. Each is possible, but the odds remain slim.

The prudent approach for companies remains clear. They should plan for the war to last into at least Q2, probably Q3, with structural effects persisting beyond. They should model energy prices at between $120 and $150 per barrel, not $70. The smart companies are the ones building optionality now because the cost of flexibility is far lower than the cost of being caught flat-footed in September.

Four weeks ago, the assumption was that the Strait of Hormuz was too important to close. However, it did, and the assumption that it will reopen quickly deserves the same scrutiny.

You can find out more about theĚýgeopolitical and economic situation in 2026Ěýhere

Key insights:

• • • Convenience has outpaced consumer understanding —ĚýMany users treat apps, prepaid accounts, and rewards programs as simple payment tools, remaining unaware they are entrusting their money to entities with few safeguards.

    • Risk is no longer confined to traditional banks — Some of the most significant financial activities now occur within platforms and brands that do not resemble banks at all.

    • Opacity enables systemic vulnerability — The less transparent an institution’s obligations, leverage, and oversight, the easier it is for financial fragility, misconduct, and systemic risk to grow unchecked.

When you think of where money is held, you generally think of a bank. However, as we look at the financial landscape today, money is being held at a wide range of institutions that often have varying levels of safety and oversight. Entities from Starbucks to Visa to Coinbase hold money for individuals, effectively serving as a bank, but often without the regulatory framework that comes with it.

Behind the scenes, it can seem like . In its daily operation, it collects prepaid funds that resemble deposits, holds them as liabilities, and uses them internally — all without offering interest, cash withdrawals, or FDIC insurance. Starbucks’ rewards program holds $1.8 billion in customer cash, and if it were a bank, that would make it bigger, , than 85% of chartered banks, making the coffee chain one of the .

This dynamic extends well beyond coffee shops. “Popular digital payment apps are increasingly used as substitutes for a traditional bank or credit union account but lack the same protections to ensure that funds are safe,” warns the . If a nonbank payment app’s business fails, your money is likely lost or tied up in a long bankruptcy process.

Shadow banking

Think of a Starbucks gift card as a financial instrument. Technically it is one, but no one seriously worries about it being weaponized for any large-scale financial crimes. Most people’s concerns about a gift card is either losing it. The real concern lies not in lost gift cards, however, but in the broader trend: Nonbank institutions managing vast sums without commensurate oversight — and scale matters. A lost gift card is a personal inconvenience; but an unregulated institution managing billions of consumer dollars in leveraged capital is a systemic one.

Shadow banking encompasses credit and lending activities by institutions that are not traditional banks, and crucially, they do not have access to central bank funding or public sector credit guarantees. And because they are not subject to the same prudential regulations as depository banks, they do not need to hold as high financial reserves relative to their market exposure, allowing for very high levels of leverage which in turn can magnify profits during boom periods and compound losses during downturns.

The shadow banking ecosystem is diverse, and each segment of it presents distinct risks:

• • Hedge funds and private equity firmsĚý— Firms like Blackstone, KKR, and Apollo manage vast capital pools using leveraged strategies under limited oversight. Their size and borrowing levels may mean that market reversals can trigger rapid deleveraging, spilling risk into broader markets.
  • Family officesĚý— A private company or advisory firm that manages the wealth of high-net-worth families, these can operate with even less transparency and often outside direct regulatory scrutiny, enabling them to engage in extreme leveraging and posing risks of sudden collapse.
  • Nonbank mortgage lenders and FinTechsĚý— This group faces lower capital requirements than traditional banks, leaving thinner buffers to absorb losses during downturns, which can be especially concerning considering this sector’s rapid growth.
  • Crypto exchangesĚý— Like much of the cryptocurrency ecosystem, these exchanges operate in jurisdictional gray zones, complicating enforcement and enabling illicit financial flows.
  • Money market funds — While these are generally perceived as safe, they can suffer runs if confidence in underlying assets erodes, which can force fire sales that destabilize related markets.
  • Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) and Structured Investment Vehicles (SIVs)Ěý— These investment instruments allow large institutions to move risk off their balance sheets, rendering such activity invisible to regulators.

Shadow banking may be the single greatest challenge facing financial regulation. These non-traditional institutions act like banks, but without the safeguards that make banks accountable. And where accountability is absent, opportunity often fills the void.

The same opacity that makes shadow banking difficult to regulate also makes it attractive to those with less legitimate intentions. Without mandatory reporting requirements, standardized oversight, or the threat of deposit insurance revocation, these institutions can become conduits for money laundering, fraud, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion in ways that traditional banks simply cannot. The question is no longer whether these vulnerabilities exist, but how they continue to be exploited.

The challenge of regulation

The global financial system has always evolved faster than the rules designed to govern it. What began as a coffee loyalty program and a few alternative lending platforms has quietly morphed into a parallel financial universe, one that moves trillions of dollars with a fraction of the transparency that traditional banking requires. That gap between innovation and oversight is not just a regulatory inconvenience, it’s an open door for illicit actors.

Closing that door will require more than periodic enforcement actions or piecemeal legislation. It will require regulators, lawmakers, and institutions to reckon honestly with how broadly the definition of a financial institution has expanded, and who bears the risk when things go wrong. Because historically, it has not been the institutions themselves; rather it has been the customers, the investors, and ultimately the public.

The first step, of course, is awareness. Recognizing that your money does not need to be in a bank to be at risk and that the custodians of that money need not be offshore shell companies to operate in shadows, can transform how we think about financial safety.

The line between a convenient app and an unaccountable financial intermediary is thinner than most realize. And in the world of financial crime, thin lines have a way of vanishing entirely.

You can learn more about theĚýmany challenges facing financial institutions todayĚýhere

Key takeaways:

• • • Companies should act fast on refunds — Companies that paid IEEPA-based duties have potential refund claims, but statutory deadlines are ticking. Business leaders should map exposure, quantify opportunities, and file protective claims now.

    • Remember, other tariffs still apply — This decision only invalidated IEEPA-based tariffs. Tariffs based on Sections 232, 301, and 122 of the 1974 Trade ActĚýremain in force, and the administration is already signaling plans for new global tariffs.

    • Businesses should update their financial models — Tariff refunds flow through cost of goods sold, which affects taxable income and effective tax rates. Business leaders should review their transfer pricing models and contracts to determine which parties receive refund proceeds.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling striking down the tariffs that the Trump Administration based on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) creates immediate refund opportunities for businesses that paid billions of dollars in now-invalidated duties. However, the administration’s pivot to alternative tariff authorities means the trade policy landscape is shifting rather than settling.

Now, corporate tax and trade leaders must move quickly to preserve refund claims while building resilient strategies for the next wave of tariff changes that are already fully in motion.

What actually happened

In , the Supreme Court said last month that President Donald J. Trump went too far by using the IEEPA — a statute designed for genuine national emergencies — to impose broad, peacetime tariffs. The Court’s message was blunt: If you want sweeping tariff authority, get the U.S. Congress to give it to you explicitly — IEEPA doesn’t cut it.

This ruling invalidated the tariffs that relied solely on IEEPA, including certain reciprocal global duties and some measures targeting Canada, Mexico, and China. However, here’s the catch: Other tariff regimes — such as those outlined in Sections 232, 301, and 122 of the TradeĚýActĚýofĚý1974Ěý— are still standing. Those weren’t touched by this decision, and they’re not going away.

Check outĚýĚýfor more on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision here

Further, the administration isn’t sitting still either. There’s already talk of pivoting to Section 122 to impose a new 10% global tariff. So, while one door closed, another may be opening, which means the legal landscape is shifting, not settling.

Why this matters right now

There are several important factors to consider in the wake of this decision, including:

Start with the money — If your company paid IEEPA-based duties, your effective tariff rate on many imports just dropped. That , changes your margin picture, and could shift pricing dynamics across the retail, consumer goods, manufacturing, and automotive sectors.

Then there’s the refund potential — Billions of dollars were collected under tariffs that are now unlawful. The government won’t write checks automatically — indeed, the administration has already signaled it will fight broad refund claims — but for individual companies, the cash at stake could be significant.

Don’t overlook your contracts — Many commercial agreements include tariff pass-through clauses, price adjustments, and indemnities. Those provisions will determine which parties actually gets the money: the importer of record, the customer, or someone else in the chain. If you restructured your supply chain around the old tariff regime, you may need to rethink those decisions, too.

What businesses should do first

There are several steps business leaders should undertake to move forward in this new environment, including:

Map your exposure — Tax and trade teams need to pull multi-year import data by Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) code, country of origin, and legal authority. Figure out which entries were hit specifically by IEEPA-based tariffs, as opposed to Section 232 or 301 duties, which again, are still in effect.

Quantify the opportunity — Calculate total IEEPA duties paid by entity, jurisdiction, and period. Include a rough estimate of interest, prioritize the highest-value lanes, and flag any statutory deadlines for protests or post-summary corrections. Missing a deadline isn’t something you can easily fix later.

Preserve your rights — If you’ve already filed test cases or joined class actions, revisit your strategy with counsel. If you haven’t, evaluate quickly whether to file protests, post-summary corrections, or other protective claims with the U.S. Customs & Border Protection. These procedures will evolve, of course, but the clock already is ticking.

Get the right people in the room — This isn’t just a tax problem or a trade compliance problem. Stand up a cross-functional working group that includes tax, customs, legal, finance, supply chain, and investor relations. Agree on who owns what, how you’ll share data, and how you’ll communicate, especially if the refund could move the needle on earnings or liquidity.

Financial reporting and tax implications

Most importantly, you need to reassess your tariff-related balances and disclosures. If refunds are probable and you can estimate them, that may affect liabilities, expense recognition, and reserves. Even if the accounting is murky, material claims may need to be discussed in your report’s Management’s Discussion & Analysis (MD&A) section or in footnotes.

On the tax side, tariff refunds and lower ongoing duties flow through cost of goods sold (COGS), which changes taxable income and your business’s effective tax rate. Timing matters: When you recognize a refund for book purposes may not match when it hits for tax, creating temporary differences that need Accounting Standards Codification 740 analysis.

And don’t forget transfer pricing. Many intercompany pricing models were built during the high-tariff period and may embed those costs in tested party margins. If tariffs fall or refunds materialize, those models and the supporting documentation may need updates. Review intercompany agreements that allocate customs and tariff costs to make sure they align with both the economics and the legal entitlement to possible refunds.

Think beyond the refund

Yes, the immediate focus is on getting your company’s money back and staying compliant — but this is also a moment in which more strategic thinking is required, including:

Run scenarios — Business show run their models to see what happens if IEEPA tariffs disappear and aren’t fully replaced. Model what happens if a broad 10% global tariff lands under Section 122. Model what happens if country- or sector-specific measures expand. For each scenario, stress-test your gross margin, cash flow, and key supply chain nodes.

Revisit your sourcing strategy — Some nearshoring or supplier diversification moves you made under the old tariff structure may no longer make sense. Others may still be smart as a hedge against renewed trade tensions. The tax team needs to be part of these conversations — not just because tariffs affect cost, but because new structures reshape your effective global tax rate, foreign tax credit position, and your base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) exposure.

Fix your data and governance — Trade policies can move fast and unpredictably. If you can’t quickly pull clean import data, run classification reviews, or model your exposure across scenarios, then you’re simply flying blind. Now is a good time to fix that.

The bottom line

The Supreme Court’s decision closed one chapter of the president’s tariff story, but it didn’t end it. For corporate tax and trade leaders, the message is straightforward: Grab the refund opportunity, protect your position, and use this moment to build a more resilient strategy for whatever comes next.

Because if there’s one thing we’ve learned, it’s that the next round of tariff changes is already on its way.

For more on the impact of tariffs on global trade, you can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recent 2026 Global Trade ReportĚýhere

Key insights:

• • • The Supreme Court decisively limited presidential tariff power under IEEPA—The decision held that the statute’s authority to “regulate importation” does not include the power to impose tariffs, especially absent clear congressional authorization for actions of major economic significance.

    • The ruling creates major uncertainty around refunds of already‑paid IEEPA tariffs— There is more than $175 billion potentially at stake and no clear, orderly mechanism yet for determining who is entitled to refunds or how they will be administered.

    • Tariffs are not ending but shifting to slower, more constrained legal authorities — As the administration pivots to statutes like Sections 232 and 301 that impose procedural hurdles and limits, it is likely to result in continued trade volatility rather than relief for businesses.

In a 6–3 ruling handed down February 20 in Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize President Donald Trump to impose tariffs. For businesses that have spent the past year navigating a dizzying storm of rate changes, exemptions, and modifications — sometimes shifting within days of each other — the ruling offers a measure of vindication.

However, don’t exhale just yet. The decision is likely to produce more confusion and instability in the near term, not less. The IEEPA tariffs may be legally dead, but the trade policy fight is very much alive, the refund process is an open question, and the administration is already pivoting to Plan B. For businesses trying to plan around a coherent trade regime, the ground has shifted again — it just shifted in a different direction.

Shortly after the announcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling, President Trump announced that his is planning to invoke new trade authorities and potentially levy new, across-the-board tariff on US trading partners. As of press time, the White House declined further comment but had tentatively scheduled a news conference for later Friday afternoon.

Here’s what happened, what it means, and what comes next.

The Court’s ruling

Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, framed the case around a simple but consequential question: Can two words — regulate and importation, separated by 16 other words in IEEPA’s text — support President Trump’s claim to his ability to impose tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope on imports from any country?

The answer, from the Court’s majority is No.

The Court’s reasoning proceeded along two tracks. First, three justices — Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett — invoked the major questions doctrine, the principle being that executive actions of vast economic and political significance require clear congressional authorization. They found none in the IEEPA. As Roberts wrote, the President must “point to clear congressional authorization” to justify his assertion of tariff power. “He cannot.”

If the past year has taught businesses anything about trade policy, it’s that certainty is now a luxury item.

Second, and commanding a full six-justice majority, the Court worked through IEEPA’s text and concluded that the word regulate simply does not encompass the power to tax. The U.S. Code is full of statutes authorizing agencies to regulate various things, but the government, in its arguments before the Court, could not identify a single one in which that power has been understood to include taxation. In one of the opinion’s sharpest lines, the majority expressed skepticism “that in IEEPA — and IEEPA alone — Congress hid a delegation of its birth-right power to tax within the quotidian power to ‘regulate.'”

What the ruling does not say

Here is where businesses may need to pay close attention: The Court said nothing about refunds of tariffs already paid.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing in dissent, flagged the looming chaos directly. “The Court’s decision is likely to generate other serious practical consequences in the near term,” Justice Kavanaugh wrote. “Refunds of billions of dollars would have significant consequences for the U.S. Treasury… . [T]hat process is likely to be a ‘mess’… . Because IEEPA tariffs have helped facilitate trade deals worth trillions of dollars… the Court’s decision could generate uncertainty regarding various trade agreements.”

Check out for more on the Supreme Court’s tariff decision here

That mess is now a real, operational problem. There is more than $175 billion in IEEPA tariff collections at risk, according to a estimate released today. Nearly 1,000 companies had already filed preemptive refund claims with the Court of International Trade (CIT) before today’s ruling. Indeed, the CIT has indicated it has jurisdiction to order reliquidation and refunds, and the government has stipulated it won’t challenge that authority.

However, the mechanics — who gets paid back, how much, and when — remain deeply uncertain. Some importers passed tariff costs downstream to their customers or absorbed them into pricing adjustments that can’t easily be unwound. For many businesses, the refund question will be less a windfall than a logistical headache.

What the Administration might do next

Make no mistake, the White House took a significant blow today. The IEEPA was the administration’s most flexible and powerful tariff instrument and the tool that let the President impose duties instantaneously, on any trading partner, at any rate, with no procedural prerequisites. That tool is now gone.

However, as mentioned, the administration signaled immediately that it intends an end-around in order to keep as many tariffs in place as possible. the United States would invoke alternative legal authorities, including Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act (national security tariffs), Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (unfair trade practices), and other statutory provisions. None of these alternatives offer the speed and blunt-force flexibility that the IEEPA provided, however, and they may not replicate the full scope of the current tariff regime in a timely fashion.

Shortly after the announcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling, President Trump announced that his is planning to invoke new trade authorities and potentially levy new, across-the-board tariff on US trading partners.

Justice Kavanaugh’s dissent, notably, conceded the point while framing it sympathetically: “In essence, the Court today concludes that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs.”

That framing understates the practical significance. The alternative statutes each come with procedural requirements — agency investigations, public hearings, durational limits, rate caps — that IEEPA’s emergency framework did not impose. Section 122, for instance, caps tariffs at 15% for 150 days. Section 232 requires an investigation and report from the U.S. a Commerce Department. Section 301 demands a formal determination by the U.S. Trade Representative. These are not insurmountable hurdles of course, but they are hurdles and they will take time.

What businesses should do now

If the past year has taught businesses anything about trade policy, it’s that certainty is now a luxury item. Today’s ruling doesn’t change that; rather, it just changes the axis of uncertainty. Here’s what any organization impacted by trade should be thinking about:

• • Review your tariff exposure immediately — Understand which of your import duties were collected under IEEPA authority compared to the other statutes (Sections 232, 301, 201). Only IEEPA tariffs are affected by today’s Court ruling. Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, and other goods remain fully in place, as do Section 301 tariffs on Chinese imports. For many importers, a significant portion of their tariff burden will not change. For others, it may change everything.
  • Engage trade counsel on refund claims — If you’ve paid IEEPA duties, the clock is ticking. The CIT has a two-year statute of limitations on refund claims, running from the date the tariffs were published. For the earliest IEEPA tariffs (the fentanyl-related duties on Canada, Mexico, and China from February 2025, for example), that window is already narrowing. If you haven’t filed a protective claim yet, consult with counsel now.
  • Prepare for replacement tariffs — The administration has made clear it intends to reimpose tariffs under alternative authorities. Thus, the effective tariff rate is not going to 0%. Even without IEEPA tariffs, estimates suggest the average rate would settle around 9%, still far above the roughly 2% that prevailed before the beginning of President Trump’s second term. Businesses should map out scenarios to plan for a period in which IEEPA tariffs are lifted but gradually replaced by duties under other statutes, potentially with different rates, different product coverage, and different country-specific treatment.
  • Monitor trade deal stability — Many of the bilateral and multilateral trade agreements negotiated over the past year — with the United Kingdome, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, and others — were structured around tariff levels built greatly upon the IEEPA. The legal basis for those arrangements is now uncertain. Watch for renegotiations, modifications, or lapses in these existing frameworks.
  • Build flexibility into supply chain planning — This is the hardest and most important advice. The trade policy environment is not returning to a stable equilibrium anytime soon. Today’s ruling is the end of one chapter, but the broader story — of a political system wrestling with how much tariff authority the President should have — is far from over. The administration will test the boundaries of its remaining statutory tools. And the courts will almost certainly be called upon again.

Taking in the bigger picture

For businesses, the practical takeaway from today’s Court order is more pedestrian but no less important: Strap in. The tariff landscape is shifting again, the refund process will be complicated, and the administration will find another way to pursue its trade objectives. Today brought clarity on the law, but clarity on the market is still a long way off.

For more on the impact of tariffs, you can download a full copy of the Thomson Reuters Institute’s recentĚýĚýhere

Key insights:

• • • AI scales deception — Fraudsters automate convincing scams, create synthetic identities, and overwhelm legacy controls, making AI an essential part of financial institutions’ anti-fraud solution.

    • “All-green” fraud is rising — The biggest losses often happen in correctly authenticated sessions, making them much harder to detect.

    • Behavior plus collaboration wins — Financial institutions need to shift from point-in-time checks to real-time, cross-channel behavioral signals and tighter inter-institution cooperation to spot coordinated campaigns and reduce friction without stalling growth.

How financial institutions are facing fraud in 2026 isn’t what it was like even two years ago. AI has industrialized deception, synthetic identities bypass traditional checks, and scams manipulate legitimate customers into moving their own money even as every security control shows green.

Today, financial institutions face a perfect storm, according to Michal Tresner, CEO of ThreatMark, and SaraĚýSeguin the DirectorĚýofĚýEnterprise Banking at Alloy. Indeed, they’re trying to manage attacks that scale automatically, identities that look real but aren’t, and victims who authenticate correctly before being convinced to hand over funds.

5 trends financial institutions need to understand in 2026

Looking at each of these five key challenges individually can offer both perspective and possible solutions.

1. The AI threat multiplier

Generative AI (GenAI) and large language models (LLMs) have fundamentally changed the fraud landscape. “AI is now the biggest threat facing financial institutions in 2026,” Tresner notes, adding that fraudsters are leveraging these technologies to create highly convincing content while automating attacks at unprecedented scale — a combination that overwhelms traditional security systems.

Seguin agrees and confirms this trend is . “Financial institutions are seeing a measurable increase in AI-enabled financial crimes, while consumers increasingly expect banks to deploy AI-based security in response,” she explains. The reality is stark: AI has become an essential tool for both fraudsters and those fighting against them.

2. The onboarding dilemma

In another area, the account opening process represents a critical vulnerability. Seguin points to rising first-party fraud and scams as particularly challenging because perpetrators often appear indistinguishable from legitimate customers going through the onboarding process. “A person may open an account with seemingly normal intentions — direct deposit or everyday banking — only to later engage in fraudulent activity,” she explains.

Onboarding is where institutions have the least certainty about either the authenticity of the identity or the legitimacy of the intent.

Tresner identifies a related threat: Synthetic identities. “Rather than stealing real identities, fraudsters now generate convincing fake ones, complete with realistic identity documents and even AI-generated images or video,” he says, noting that these synthetic identity accounts are exploding and frequently serve as infrastructure for moving stolen funds.

The common thread is that onboarding is where institutions have the least certainty about either the authenticity of the identity or the legitimacy of the intent.

3. Authentication under siege

Similarly, and even as financial institutions work to strengthen onboarding controls, account takeover remains a persistent threat. Fraudsters are now using AI to bypass authentication mechanisms at scale, making previously reliable security gates less trustworthy, Tresner explains. “Successful authentication can no longer serve as a definitive indicator of safety.”

Indeed, a properly authenticated session may still be the entry point for fraud, whether committed by an intruder or through a legitimate customer who is being manipulated.

4. The “all green” problem

Which brings us to another fraud scenario faced increasingly by financial institutions, and one that Tresner says may be 2026’s most operationally challenging issue — the fact that many scams don’t trigger traditional fraud controls. When the legitimate account holder initiates a transaction from their usual device and location using correct credentials, every standard check appears normal. The difference is the persuasion happening on the other side as fraudsters convince victims they’re interacting with trusted entities like banks, law enforcement, or romantic partners, and then direct them to transfer money.

Seguin notes that detecting these scenarios requires new approaches, such as identifying subtle behavioral signals like hesitation immediately before a money transfer. “Traditional device and credential checks won’t help when the customer is genuinely authenticated but acting under manipulation,” she explains.

5. Fraud as an industrial operation

Tresner emphasizes that modern fraud is not a series of isolated events but a coordinated, multi-step operation. Campaigns typically begin with establishing or compromising mule accounts, then deploying automated phishing kits to harvest personal data.

Younger users represent a growing target due to their online activity and platform usage, and the emergence of human trafficking-linked fraud operations has worsened this problem.

Not surprisingly, younger users represent a growing target due to their online activity and platform usage, Seguin says, adding that the emergence of human trafficking-linked fraud operations, including sextortion and overseas scam compounds, has worsened this problem.

What works in 2026

Tresner’s core recommendation for fraud investigators in financial institutions is for them to shift their focus from static, point-in-time checks to behavior-based detection. “Behavior profiling and analytics across channels can identify sophisticated actors and manipulation patterns invisible in single transactions or logins,” he explains, stressing that real-time cooperation among financial institutions is critical because fraudsters collaborate, and isolated defenses are insufficient.

Further, Seguin reframes fraud prevention as a growth enabler. “Effective risk controls allow institutions to launch products faster, set higher transaction limits with confidence, and avoid overly restrictive policies driven by fraud concerns,” she notes. Indeed, modern fraud defense isn’t just about reducing losses but about enabling safe expansion.

The 2026 fraud landscape presents compounding challenges: AI-driven scale and realism, onboarding uncertainty from synthetic identities and hidden intent, weakening authentication boundaries, scams that produce legitimate-looking transactions, and industrialized fraud operations that can span channels and institutions. Success in this area requires financial institutions to treat fraud as a behavioral, multi-channel, collaborative challenge because that’s exactly how their adversaries are operating.

You can learn more about the many challenges facing financial institutions today here

Key insights:

• • • Sextortion has evolved into a global industry — This crime is being fueled by organized crime networks and human trafficking.

    • Victims exist on both sides— Often, vulnerable workers, who operate as forced labor in scam compounds abroad, are as much the victims as those people being scammed online and extorted for financial gain.

    • Digital literacy and cross-border cooperation are strong tools — Governments and law enforcement need to better educate the public about these scams and seek better collaboration to prevent exploitation and to dismantle organized crime networks.

A 17-year-old Michigan high school student after inadvertently sharing explicit photos with a Nigerian sextortion scammer after the scammer posed as a teenage girl on a fraudulent Instagram account. Also, a 16-year-old Kentucky high school student after he was blackmailed with an AI-generated nude image.

Sadly, these two families are victims of the more than 100,000 sextortion reports filed with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) since 2020, many now involving AI-generated imagery. These reports are part of the larger increase in , which typically targets males ages 14 to 17 and which has been on the rise since 2020. These tragic cases are part of a vast network of scams that stretches from the to criminal compounds in Asia and Africa.

Sextortion in the modern age

The FBI defines sextortion as a criminal act in which an offender blackmails a victim for payment under the threat of releasing sexually explicit material, such as a photo or video. The material may have been solicited through a romance scam or may be the product of generative AI (GenAI). Sextortion is the latest trend in a series of scams that generate billions of dollars for international criminal syndicates on the backs of forced labor in parts of the world with unstable governance and oversight. An average 800 CyberTipline reports submitted to NCMEC from 2022 to 2023 related to the sextortion of minors.

NCMEC notes that victims of sextortion scams to the CyberTipline and make use of the . Take It Down allows for anonymous requests to remove explicit images from participating platforms and social media companies. encourages changing passwords after scam activity and not responding to any requests for payment, even if threats are made.

Organized crime syndicates and cyber-scams

are the “definitive market leaders” in cyber-enabled fraud and online scams, which have been rapidly expanding since the COVID-19 pandemic, according to the United Nations’ Office on Drugs and Crime. In areas of Asia with weak governance, scam centers and fraud gangs run sophisticated operations that often front as industrial parks or casinos and hotels. and coerced into defrauding other victims online. The trafficked individuals often are lured with false promises of high-paying jobs and the ability to maximize their language skills.

Broad enforcement efforts have been relatively ineffective as scamming operations simply move within the country or offshore.

Once there, victims are forced into labor to commit financial fraud usually by enticing smartphone users to invest in cryptocurrency scams or engaging in sextortion (which sometimes includes forced sex trafficking to produce sexual content). It is unclear if teenagers are being targeted explicitly or if they are inadvertently targeted through broader, population-wide cyber-scams.

The Myanmar town of Laukkaing (also spelled Laukkai), the capital city of the Kokang Self-Administered Zone is considered the engine-room of forced labor scamming. In Myanmar’s Kokang region, have turned from narcotics to online scamming, operating casinos, and scam compounds possibly because these crimes are more lucrative and easier to operate at scale.

In October 2023, a deadly crackdown at Myanmar’s Crouching Tiger Villa (referred to as the 1020 Incident) was the beginning of the crumbling of mafia-led control in Laukkaing. The Chinese government launched coordinated attacks, which resulted in . The leader of the Ming family (which operated Crouching Tiger Villa) took his own life after being captured, but of his extended family with ties to organized crime and illegal activities in Myanmar were sentenced in Chinese courts in September 2025, including 11 who were sentenced to death.

An estimated US $1.4 billion was generated by the Ming family over 10 years through telecommunications fraud, illegal casinos, drug trafficking, and prostitution.

Inside offshore scam compounds

Beyond Southeast Asia, forced-scam operations have grown rapidly across the Mekong region. TheĚý, funded in part by ¶¶ŇőłÉÄę, notes their study of CyberTipline reports and IP addresses point to a strong presence of scam compounds in Myanmar and Cambodia.

The financial impact of scam compounds is no small factor — ruling elites in these countries have a financial motivation to look the other way because of its high profitability. The in Cambodia are more than US $12.5 billion annually, or about half of the country’s formal GDP. Across Mekong countries (China, Myanmar, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, and Vietnam), cyber-scam returns generate an estimated US $43.8 billion annually.

The financial impact of scam compounds is no small factor — ruling elites in these countries have a financial motivation to look the other way because of its high profitability.

Broad enforcement efforts have been relatively ineffective as scamming operations simply move within the country or offshore, and there are reports that these complex money laundering operations help move funds into the formal economy of countries with weak governance.

Despite the challenges in enforcement, some high-profile enforcement cases have helped to generate international coordination against cyber-scams and sextortion. A California teen’s death by suicide resulting from sextortion led to three years later. Interpol’s (July and August 2025) resulted in 260 arrests and more than 1,200 electronic device seizures in 14 African countries. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) announced that as the main regional security concern last month. Domestically, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has issued sanctions on nine targets involved in scam operations in , and against (who is also associated with online scam centers).

Digital literacy as a solution

To truly begin to crack scam networks that operate in parts of the world with weak governance, of their citizens and support stronger cross-border investigation strategies. Stronger anti-money laundering frameworks can disrupt scam compounds more effectively than sting operations that just force the scam operation to move elsewhere.

It is critical that digital literacy is emphasized for online users who fall prey to sextortion and among job seekers lured into forced labor in scam compounds by fraudulent job advertisements. Cross-border collaboration among authorities, along with stronger enforcement and shared digital literacy, are the best defenses against this evolving threat.

You can find out more about our coverage of human trafficking, child exploitation, and forced labor at our Human Rights Crimes Resource Center here