File size: 11,834 Bytes
e9a38a9 8afd7a4 e9a38a9 8afd7a4 e9a38a9 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 | # 🏦 BankShield-2M: Synthetic Banking & Fraud Detection Dataset
> **2,000,000 records · 5 relational tables · 64 features · Multi-country · Analyst-labeled**
>
> **[⬇ Get the Full Dataset →](https://synthox.gumroad.com/l/jsyco)**
---
## Why This Dataset Exists
Every serious fraud-detection, credit-risk, or behavioral-analytics model eventually hits the same wall: **real banking data is locked behind NDAs, GDPR constraints, and institutional gatekeepers**. Public alternatives are either too small, too narrow, or stripped of the relational structure that makes real-world models actually work.
BankShield-2M was engineered to close that gap — a fully synthetic, privacy-safe dataset that mirrors the statistical properties, relational schema, and domain complexity of a real retail bank operating at scale.
---
## Dataset at a Glance
| Table | Full Dataset | Sample | Key Features |
|---|---|---|---|
| `transactions` | 2,000,000 | 5,000 | 12 cols, fraud labels, geo, device, merchant |
| `customers` | 50,000 | 2,500 | 16 cols, PII-safe, credit score, income, risk tier |
| `accounts` | 75,000 | 3,750 | 11 cols, IBAN, multi-currency, balance, credit limit |
| `fraud_alerts` | 22,000 | 1,100 | 9 cols, risk score, analyst notes, alert lifecycle |
| `devices` | 35,000 | 1,750 | 10 cols, fingerprint, OS, browser, trust status |
| **Total** | **2,182,000** | **14,100** | **58 features** |
---
## Schema & Relational Structure
```
customers (customer_id PK)
│
├──< accounts (account_id PK, customer_id FK)
│ │
│ └──< transactions (transaction_id PK, account_id FK)
│ │
│ └──< fraud_alerts (alert_id PK, transaction_id FK)
│
└──< devices (device_id PK, customer_id FK)
```
**Full referential integrity across all five tables.** Every `account_id` in transactions traces back to a `customer_id`; every `transaction_id` in alerts traces back to a flagged transaction. This is the graph structure that production fraud systems actually operate on.
---
## Feature Deep-Dive
### `transactions.csv` — The Core Signal Table
```
transaction_id │ UUID, unique per event
account_id │ FK → accounts
transaction_date │ ISO 8601 with milliseconds (2021–2024)
merchant_name │ 50+ real-world merchants (Walmart, Apple, Texaco…)
merchant_category │ 11 categories: ONLINE_RETAIL, GROCERY, RESTAURANT,
│ GAS_STATION, TRAVEL, ENTERTAINMENT, ATM_WITHDRAWAL,
│ HEALTHCARE, UTILITY, WIRE_TRANSFER, OTHER
amount_usd │ $0.67 – $49,622.28 (median $58, p95 $640)
transaction_type │ DEBIT / CREDIT / TRANSFER / REVERSAL
location_city │ Real city names across 10+ countries
location_country │ US(35%), GB(18%), DE(15%), AE(10%), ES/FR/NL/IT…
device_type │ MOBILE_APP(41%), POS_TERMINAL(30%), WEB_BROWSER(21%),
│ ATM(7%), PHONE(1%)
ip_address │ Unique IPv4 per transaction
is_fraud │ Binary label — 0.84% positive rate (realistic imbalance)
```
**Why it matters:** The class imbalance of 0.84% is not arbitrary — it mirrors the empirical 0.5–1.5% fraud rate documented across major card networks. Models trained on artificially balanced datasets fail in production; this one won't.
---
### `fraud_alerts.csv` — The Intelligence Layer
```
alert_id │ UUID
transaction_id │ FK → transactions
alert_timestamp │ When the alert was generated
alert_type │ GEO_ANOMALY(30%), ML_MODEL_FLAG(19%),
│ AMOUNT_ANOMALY(18%), VELOCITY_CHECK(15%),
│ BEHAVIORAL_ANOMALY(11%), DEVICE_FINGERPRINT(8%)
risk_score │ Continuous [0.102 – 0.989], mean=0.722
alert_status │ CONFIRMED_FRAUD(42%), RESOLVED(21%),
│ INVESTIGATING(14%), FALSE_POSITIVE(12%), NEW(10%)
analyst_notes │ Free-text investigation notes (NLP-ready)
resolution_timestamp │ SLA-trackable, NULL for unresolved cases
confirmed_fraud │ Final binary label — 77.4% confirmation rate
```
**Why it matters:** Six alert types encode the real taxonomy of financial fraud detection — geographic impossibility, behavioral deviation, device compromise, velocity abuse, and ML-model flagging. The analyst notes column is a rare NLP training signal for financial domain adaptation.
---
### `customers.csv` — The Identity Graph
```
customer_id │ UUID
full_name │ Internationalized (UK, US, DE, AE, FR, NL names)
date_of_birth │ Full age distribution
gender │ M / F / Non-binary
national_id │ Format-correct per country (SSN, NIN, UAE ID…)
email │ Realistic domain distribution
phone │ E.164 international format
address/city/zip │ Country-coherent (UK postcodes, US ZIPs, DE PLZs)
country │ US(39%), GB(20%), DE(15%), AE(11%), CH/IT/NL/FR…
credit_score │ FICO-range [300–850], mean=679, std=90
income_annual_usd │ [$12K – $689K], realistic skew
customer_since │ 2010–2023 — enables customer lifetime features
risk_tier │ HIGH(36%), LOW(26%), MEDIUM(23%), VERY_HIGH(14%)
is_fraud_suspect │ 2.68% flagged — enables customer-level fraud scoring
```
---
### `accounts.csv` — The Financial Ledger
```
account_id │ UUID
customer_id │ FK → customers (up to 3 accounts per customer)
account_type │ CHECKING(44%), SAVINGS(30%), CREDIT(20%), BUSINESS(5%)
account_number │ 10-digit synthetic number
iban │ Format-valid IBANs for GB, DE, US, AE
currency │ USD(40%), EUR(24%), GBP(21%), AED(10%), CHF(3%)
opened_date │ Account age signal
balance │ [-$63K – $1.44M] (negative balances included)
credit_limit │ Present only for CREDIT accounts [$517 – $74K]
status │ ACTIVE(88%), SUSPENDED(7%), CLOSED(5%)
is_flagged │ 2.9% — account-level risk signal
```
---
### `devices.csv` — The Trust & Telemetry Layer
```
device_id │ UUID
customer_id │ FK → customers
device_fingerprint │ MD5-format hash — unique per device
device_type │ MOBILE(55%), DESKTOP(35%), TABLET(10%)
os │ iOS(36%), Android(29%), Windows(20%), macOS(11%), Linux(4%)
browser │ App(38%), Chrome(32%), Safari(18%), Firefox(6%), Edge(6%)
first_seen │ Device registration date
last_seen │ Last activity date — enables recency features
is_trusted │ 75.7% trusted baseline
is_fraud_device │ 3.8% compromise rate
```
---
## What You Can Build
### Supervised Learning — Fraud Detection
- Binary classifier on `is_fraud` with full feature engineering across all 5 tables
- Multi-label classification (alert type prediction)
- Probability calibration benchmarking under real class imbalance (0.84%)
### Risk Scoring & Regression
- Customer-level risk score modeling using `credit_score`, `income_annual_usd`, `risk_tier`, transaction history
- Account-level default probability from `balance`, `credit_limit`, `status`, `is_flagged`
### Anomaly Detection (Unsupervised)
- Isolation Forest / Autoencoder baselines on transaction patterns
- Device trust scoring from behavioral telemetry
- Geographic impossibility detection from `location_city/country` + `ip_address`
### Graph Neural Networks
- Heterogeneous graph: customer → account → transaction → alert
- Fraud ring detection via shared device fingerprints or IPs
- Link prediction: which accounts belong to the same fraud ring?
### NLP / LLM Fine-Tuning
- Analyst notes as training signal for financial-domain LLMs
- Named entity recognition on merchant names
- Text classification of `analyst_notes` → `alert_type`
### Time-Series Analysis
- Transaction velocity features (hourly/daily aggregations)
- Customer behavioral drift detection over 2021–2024
- Seasonal fraud pattern analysis
### Multi-Task Learning
- Simultaneous prediction of `is_fraud`, `risk_score`, and `alert_type`
- Joint customer + account + transaction risk models
### MLOps & Benchmark Infrastructure
- Reproducible train/val/test splits with temporal holdout
- Class-imbalance benchmarking: SMOTE, focal loss, class-weighted XGBoost
- Model performance baselines on a scale unavailable in public datasets
---
## Statistical Properties
### Realistic Class Distribution
| Signal | Positive Rate | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| `transactions.is_fraud` | 0.84% | Matches real-world card fraud rates |
| `fraud_alerts.confirmed_fraud` | 77.4% | High-quality alert pipeline |
| `customers.is_fraud_suspect` | 2.68% | Customer-level exposure |
| `accounts.is_flagged` | 2.93% | Account-level risk |
| `devices.is_fraud_device` | 3.83% | Compromised device rate |
### Geographic Realism
| Country | Customers | Primary Currency |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 39% | USD |
| United Kingdom | 20% | GBP |
| Germany | 15% | EUR |
| UAE | 11% | AED |
| Switzerland, Italy, Netherlands, France | 15% combined | CHF / EUR |
### Temporal Coverage
- **Transaction window:** January 2021 – June 2024 (3.5 years)
- **Customer tenure:** 2010–2023 (14-year range for long-term behavioral modeling)
- **Alert resolution SLA:** Computable from `alert_timestamp` → `resolution_timestamp` (27% unresolved — mirrors real investigation queues)
---
## Data Quality Notes
| Table | Known Nulls | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| `transactions` | 0.38% in `transaction_date` | Realistic ETL artifacts |
| `fraud_alerts` | 24.5% in `resolution_timestamp` | Unresolved/open investigations |
| `accounts` | 79.8% in `credit_limit` | NULL only for non-CREDIT accounts |
| `customers` | 0 | Complete |
| `devices` | 0 | Complete |
Nulls are **by design**, not data corruption. `credit_limit` is NULL for CHECKING/SAVINGS/BUSINESS accounts because it is inapplicable. Unresolved `resolution_timestamp` values represent active investigation cases — a feature, not a bug.
---
## Comparison to Existing Public Datasets
| Dataset | Records | Tables | Fraud Labels | Relational | Multi-Country | Analyst Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| **BankShield-2M** | **2M+** | **5** | **✅ Multi-level** | **✅ Full FK** | **✅ 10+ countries** | **✅ Yes** |
| IEEE-CIS Fraud 2019 | 590K | 2 | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| PaySim | 6.3M | 1 | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| Credit Card Fraud (Kaggle) | 284K | 1 | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
| BankSim | 594K | 1 | ✅ | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ |
---
## License & Usage
- **Fully synthetic** — no real individuals, no PII, GDPR/CCPA compliant
- **Commercial use permitted** under the dataset license
- Suitable for academic research, ML product development, FinTech prototyping, red-team simulation, and fraud analytics education
---
## Get the Full 2-Million-Record Dataset
The files in this repository are a **0.25% sample** of the complete dataset.
The full release includes:
- `transactions.csv` — 2,000,000 rows
- `customers.csv` — 50,000 rows
- `accounts.csv` — 75,000 rows
- `fraud_alerts.csv` — 22,000 rows
- `devices.csv` — 35,000 rows
- Data dictionary (`schema.md`)
- Suggested train/val/test split methodology
**[⬇ Purchase on Gumroad →](https://synthox.gumroad.com/l/jsyco)**
---
## Citation
If you use this dataset in academic work:
```bibtex
@dataset{BankShield2m_2024,
title = {BankShield-2M: Synthetic Banking and Fraud Detection Dataset},
year = {2024},
publisher = {Synthox},
url = {https://synthox.gumroad.com/l/jsyco}
}
```
---
*Dataset generated and maintained by [Synthox](https://synthox.gumroad.com). For questions, feature requests, or bulk licensing, contact via Gumroad.*
|