Insurance

The fraud ring

that was invisible in every spreadsheet.

Your claims, policy, and investigation systems each hold fragments of the truth. A coordinated fraud ring only appears when you connect claimants to their addresses, their legal representatives, their repair shops, and their prior claims in a single graph. LangOptima builds that graph.

+40%
Fraud detection rate in the first quarter
47
Previously unlinked claims connected in one ring
90–95%
AML false positive rate (industry estimates)
A proven pattern

A claims and policy graph modeled in RDF, connecting claimants, providers, vehicles, and policies into one semantic web, so fraud rings and hidden exposure surface where table-based checks miss them.

The Status Quo

Tabular data hides networks. Networks are where fraud lives.

Your investigators are sharp. Your systems are sound. The problem is that fraud rings exist in the relationships between records, and relational systems were never designed to surface relationships.

📄

Claims in isolation

Each claim is reviewed on its own merits. Connected-party analysis happens only when a suspicious pattern has already tripped a rule, and rule-based systems miss novel ring structures.

🔍

Manual detective work

Investigating a suspicious claim means days of jumping between claims, policy, investigation, and external data systems to build a picture of the connected parties. Most investigators never get the full picture.

⚠️

Rings go undetected

47 unlinked claims connected through shared addresses, representatives, and repair shops will never trigger a single-claim rule. Only a network view reveals them, and only if you have one.

The Knowledge Graph

Every claim. Every connected party. One graph.

LangOptima models your claimants, policies, legal representatives, repair shops, medical assessors, addresses, and claims as connected entities in a single knowledge graph. Your existing claims and investigation systems keep running. The graph is the layer that makes the hidden network visible.

Modern AI can structure a great deal on its own. Where it stops is the meaning specific to your organization: the concepts, rules, and relationships that make your business yours, and where its real value lives. We structure that layer with you on open, world-standard semantics, not a proprietary schema, so the graph reflects how you operate and stays yours: no vendor lock-in, portable to whatever you run next. More on the structure beneath it →

You don't have to boil the ocean. Start with a single business context and prove it there. Once that foundation is laid properly, the same connected data tends to open opportunities in other departments, so the next team builds on the work already done rather than starting from zero.

Pillar 01

Connected Data

Claims, policy, investigation, and external data unified in a semantic layer. Entity resolution bridges the inconsistent identifiers that let the same claimant appear as three different people.

Pillar 02

Hidden Insights

Surface coordinated fraud rings, shared-address clusters, and representative patterns that no single-claim rule would ever catch. The network view is the insight.

Pillar 03

Faster Decisions

Investigators open a suspicious claim and see the complete network on the first click. Hours of detective work collapse to seconds.

Pillar 04

Amplified Teams

Your investigators stop building context and start making judgments. The knowledge graph does not replace their expertise; it compounds it.

Proof

What this looks like in practice.

Representative scenarios for insurers with your profile. Ask us what applies to yours.

Insurer

Fraud detection rate up 40% in the first quarter

An insurer increased fraud detection rate by 40% in the first quarter by modeling claimants, representatives, repair shops, and addresses as a connected knowledge graph. A 47-claim fraud ring surfaced in week one, previously invisible in tabular data.

+40%
fraud detection rate
Source: representative scenario from LangOptima's case-study library, not a published client reference.
Industry Benchmark

AML programs live with 90–95% false positives

Industry estimates put rule-based AML screening at 90–95% false positives. Graph-based pattern detection complements existing rules by surfacing the relationships rules cannot see, while leaving the investigator in control.

−FP
fewer false positives, more real hits
Source: representative scenario from LangOptima's case-study library, not a published client reference.
How It Works

The way this works is simple. Three parts.

However complex the data landscape underneath, the engagement itself stays simple.

Step 01

Connect

Pick one decision that matters, say the network behind a suspected fraud ring. We build the knowledge graph over the claims, policy, and investigation systems you already run. Nothing is replaced. Your teams keep working where they work today.

Step 02

Ground

Your team's questions, reports, and AI run on that connected layer. Answers come in seconds, accurate and traceable, with citations back to the source so you can check them yourself.

Step 03

Prove

A working result in a scoped 8–12 week paid pilot, measured against success criteria you set. If it proves value, you expand from there. If it doesn't, it doesn't scale.

The next fraud ring

is already in your claims data.

Start with a 30-minute conversation. Tell us about the line of business, the claim pattern, or the investigation that is eating the most time today, and we’ll show you how a knowledge graph would surface the network underneath.