ThetaRay and Spayce Partner to Combat Financial Crime and Secure Global Payments with Cognitive AI
The announcement comes at a time when the financial crime landscape is undergoing a dramatic transformation. As criminal networks grow more sophisticated and agile, operating with the complexity of multinational corporations, traditional rule-based anti-money laundering (AML) systems are increasingly outpaced. These outdated tools often miss hidden threats, allowing illicit activity to slip through undetected and exposing institutions to regulatory, financial, and reputational risk.
Spayce has deployed ThetaRay's Cognitive AI Transaction Monitoring solution into its global payments infrastructure to enhance its financial crime detection capabilities. ThetaRay's solution uses Cognitive AI to continuously analyze the vast volumes of transaction data, detecting nuanced suspicious activity, and uncovering complex financial crime schemes with exceptional accuracy. This AI-first approach not only strengthens compliance but empowers Spayce to scale securely, turning regulatory readiness into a foundation for sustainable growth.
Spayce, which serves clients ranging from SMBs to large financial institutions in over 200 countries, now gains deeper visibility into transaction flows without compromising speed or customer experience. The result is a smarter, faster, and more secure global payments ecosystem, one where compliance no longer slows expansion, but actively enables it.
'Financial crime is evolving rapidly, and the technology used to combat it must evolve even faster,' said Peter Reynolds, CEO of ThetaRay. 'Our partnership with Spayce unites robust payment infrastructure with ThetaRay's Cognitive AI to deliver proactive risk mitigation, greater transparency, and the trusted cross-border transactions needed to power global growth.'
'As Spayce expands its global payments capabilities, security and AML compliance remain at the core of our mission,' said Debra LePage, Partner & Co-Founder of Spayce. 'Partnering with ThetaRay empowers us to stay ahead of increasingly sophisticated financial threats, while continuing to deliver seamless, trusted payment experiences for our customers worldwide.'
Companies In This Post
ThetaRay
Spayce
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Why we need a right not to be manipulated
Many nations already enshrine a right not to be defrauded, and even a right not to be deceived. If a company sells you a new medicine, falsely claiming that it prevents cancer, it can be punished. If a firm convinces you to buy a new smartphone, saying that it has state-of-the-art features when it doesn't, it will have violated the law. But in the current era, many companies are taking our time and money not by defrauding or deceiving us, but by practising the dark art of manipulation. They hide crucial terms in fine print. They automatically enrol you in a programme that costs money but does not benefit you at all. They make it easy for you to subscribe to a service, but extremely hard for you to cancel. They use 'drip pricing', by which they quote you an initial number, getting you to commit to the purchase, only to add a series of additional costs, knowing that once you've embarked on the process, you are likely just to say 'yeah, whatever'. In its worst forms, manipulation is theft. It takes people's resources and attention, and it does so without their consent. Manipulators are tricksters, and sometimes even magicians. They divert the eye and take advantage of people's weaknesses. Often they exploit simple ignorance. They fail to respect, and try to undermine, people's capacity to make reflective and deliberative choices. A manipulator might convince you to buy a useless health product, not by lying, but by appealing to your emotions, and by painting seductive pictures of how great you will feel once you use the product. Or they might tell you an anecdote about someone just like you, who used a supposed pain-relief product and felt better within 12 hours. Anecdotes have real power – but they can be profoundly misleading. More insidiously still, manipulators might know about, and enlist, some of the central findings in contemporary behavioural economics, the field that explores how people depart from perfect rationality. All of us are vulnerable in this regard, subject to the 'cognitive biases' elaborated by Daniel Kahneman, Amos Tversky, Richard Thaler and others, that affect our behaviour. These can be hard to recognize, and harder still to overcome. For example, human beings tend to suffer from 'present bias'. We care a lot about today and tomorrow, but the future is a foreign country, Laterland, and we are not sure we are ever going to visit. Tactics like 'buy now, pay later' take advantage of this. Another bias is 'loss aversion'; we tend to dislike losses a lot more than we like equivalent gains. That's why advertisers might claim 'you can't afford not to' buy their product. Inertia is a powerful force, and companies exploit 'status quo bias' by automatically subscribing you to something in the knowledge that even if it's possible to opt out, many won't bother. Our attention is limited, which means we are able to focus on only a subset of the things that come across our radars. Knowing this, manipulators present only the most attractive aspect of a transaction and downplay other, less inviting parts. So, manipulation is all around us, and rarely punished. But if we aim to create a right not to be manipulated, we will have to specify what we are talking about. A moral right can define manipulation broadly. A legal right should focus on the worst cases – the most egregious forms of trickery, those that are hardest to justify and that are most likely to impose real harm. Those worst cases occur when people are not given clarity that they are committing themselves to certain terms – and when the terms are ones they wouldn't consent to if they had full knowledge. For example, there should be a prohibition on billing people in accordance with terms to which they did not actively agree, unless it is clear that they would have agreed if they'd been asked. The underlying principle should be one of personal autonomy, which means that hidden fees and costs should be banned too. We know that rules designed to bring those fees and costs into the open can do a great deal of good. A couple of recent examples from the US: in 2024, the Department of Transportation created a rule that requires airlines and ticket agents to disclose charges for checked baggage, carry-on baggage, changing or cancelling a reservation and so on up front. Also in 2024, the Federal Communications Commission required internet service providers to display standardized 'broadband nutrition labels'. These include details of pricing, data allowances and broadband speeds, and enable customers to compare providers' offerings like-for-like, without tricks and obfuscation. But consumer protection is only the start. In 1890, two lawyers, Samuel Warren and Louis Brandeis, proposed a new right: the right to privacy. They were not entirely clear about its contents, but the bedrock was the 'right to be let alone'. Warren and Brandeis's thinking helped to launch a thousand ships, including rules against the disclosure of private facts, against surveillance, and around personal choices (including the right to same-sex marriage). The right not to be manipulated now is a lot like the right to privacy back in 1890. At this stage, we cannot identify the full scope, and the appropriate limits, of that new right. The protection of consumers and investors is urgent. How it might apply to politics is a more delicate matter, and lawmakers will need to tread cautiously there. One thing is clear, though: manipulation is a threat to our autonomy, our freedom and our wellbeing. We ought to be taking steps to fight back. Professor Cass R Sunstein is the co-author of Nudge and founder and director of the Program on Behavioral Economics and Public Policy at Harvard. His new book, Manipulation: What It Is, Why It's Bad, What to Do About It, will be published by Cambridge in August (£22). To support the Guardian order your copy at Delivery charges may apply. Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman (Penguin, £14.99) Misbehaving by Richard H Thaler (Penguin, £10.99) The Psychology of Money Morgan Housel (Harriman House, £16.99)
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Labour ditches plan to charge inheritance tax on payments made to bereaved military children
Labour has ditched plans to hit the grieving children of military personnel with a tax on their bereavement payments. In October Rachel Reeves announced plans to make relatives in receipt of off-duty death-in-service payments, other than spouses or civil partners, pay inheritance tax from April 2027. This means children and unmarried partners of soldiers who died from illness while off-duty, would have been subject to a tax on their payments. But the Chancellor was forced to back down from her Budget announcement after mounting pressure from members of the Armed Forces, who called it a 'corrosive' plan. The Government confirmed to The Daily Telegraph that after a consultation with Armed Forces organisations it had decided to withdraw the proposals. A spokesman said: 'From April 6, 2027 all death in service benefits payable from registered pension schemes will be out of scope of Inheritance Tax, regardless of whether the scheme is discretionary or non-discretionary.' The latest climbdown comes after Ms Reeves was forced to scale down plans to scrap the universal winter fuel payment and reforms to the welfare system. Mark Francois, the Tory Armed Forces spokesman, said he welcomes the reversal decision 'though it represents another U-turn by this Labour Government'. He added: 'I am pleased that common sense has now finally prevailed.' An HM Treasury spokesman said: 'It's right that we are excluding all death in service benefits from inheritance tax while still achieving the Government's objective of removing inconsistencies between pension schemes.'
BBC News
5 hours ago
- BBC News
EU and US agree trade deal, with 15% tariffs for European exports to America
The United States and European Union have reached a trade deal, ending a months-long standoff between two of the world's key economic make-or-break negotiations between President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula Von der Leyen in Scotland, the pair agreed on a blanket US tariff on all EU goods of 15%. That is half the 30% import tax rate Trump had threatened to implement starting on Friday. Trump said the 27-member bloc would open its markets to US exporters with zero per cent tariffs on certain der Leyen also hailed the deal, saying it would bring stability for both allies, who together account for almost a third of global trade. Trump has threatened tariffs against major US trade partners in a bid to reorder the global economy and trim the American trade well as the EU, he has also struck tariff agreements with the UK, Japan, Indonesia and Vietnam, although he has not achieved his goal of "90 deals in 90 days".Sunday's deal was announced after private talks between Trump and Von der Leyen at his Turnberry golf course in South - who is on a five-day visit to Scotland - said following a brief meeting with the European Commission president: "We have reached a deal. It's a good deal for everybody.""It's going to bring us closer together," he der Leyen also hailed it as a "huge deal", after "tough negotiations".Under the agreement, Trump said the EU would boost its investment in the US by $600bn (£446bn), purchase hundreds of billions of dollars of American military equipment and spend $750bn on investment in American liquified natural gas, oil and nuclear fuels would, Von der Leyen said, help reduce European reliance on Russian power sources."I want to thank President Trump personally for his personal commitment and his leadership to achieve this breakthrough," she said."He is a tough negotiator, but he is also a dealmaker."The US president also said a 50% tariff he has implemented on steel and aluminium globally would stay in sides can paint this agreement as something of a the EU, the tariffs could have been worse: it is not as good as the UK's 10% tariff rate, but is the same as the 15% rate that Japan the US it equates to the expectation of roughly $90bn of tariff revenue into government coffers – based on last year's trade figures, plus there's hundreds of billions of dollars of investment now due to come into the US. How are trade deals actually negotiated?They made America's clothing. Now they are getting punished for itIn pictures: President Trump's private visit to Scotland Trade in goods between the EU and US totalled about $975.9bn last year. Last year the US imported about $606bn in goods from the EU and exported around $ imbalance, or trade deficit, is a sticking point for Trump. He says trade relationships like this mean the US is "losing".If he had followed through on tariffs against Europe, import taxes would have been levied on products from Spanish pharmaceuticals to Italian leather, German electronics and French EU had said it was prepared to retaliate with tariffs on US goods including car parts, Boeing planes and Prime Minister Keir Starmer plans his own meeting with Trump at Turnberry on will be in Aberdeen on Tuesday, where his family has another golf course and is opening a third next president and his sons plan to help cut the ribbon on the new fairway.
