Abstract

In the system of global information space, it is important to adequately calculate and assess the factors of successful functioning of the banking system, which are directly the engines of the country’s development, economic stability, especially from the standpoint of qualitative measurement of innovative technology and human capital in rapid cyber fraud. The work is devoted to studying factors that describe the components of efficiency and potential use of innovative technologies in neo-banking in 90 countries to determine the level of risk of their use for money laundering based on gravitational modeling methodology. The authors substantiated that using four factors consisting of 13 components of digital evolution is expedient. Three indicators (access infrastructure, transaction infrastructure, and fulfillment infrastructure) allowed forming the supply condition factor. It provides a score on developing digital and physical infrastructure to ensure the digital economic system’s quality. The «demand conditions» factor consists of 4 indicators (human quality level, device absorption level and digital broadband level, digital payment absorption), which show how much consumers are willing and able to participate in the digital economic system and whether they have the tools and skills needed to connect to the digital economy. Three indicators (institutional effectiveness and trust, institutions and the business environment, institutions and the digital ecosystem) shaped the «institutional environment» factor. It relates to research on countries’ support for digital legislation, governments’ investment in digitalization, and regulations. Regulate the quality of storage and access to digital data. The fourth factor of «innovation and change» consists of three features that characterize the state of key innovative economic system inputs (talents and capital), processes (i.e., cooperation between universities and industry), and outputs (i.e., new scalable digital products and services). The generalized indicator was formed based on these indicators. It characterizes the degree of risk of using the services of neobanks of the studied countries by economic agents or individuals to legalize criminal proceeds. At the first stage of the proposed method, the authors substantiated the statistical significance and possibility of using the studied indicators. The procedure of logarithmic normalization was carried out. The toolkit of descriptive statistics of the Statgaphics Centurion package provided the normalization parameters. In the second stage, the indicators were collapsed using a geometric weighted average, which provides meaningful information about the average dynamics rate. The third stage provided calculating the value of the integrated rating assessment of the degree of risk of using innovative technologies, services, and neobanking services for money laundering based on gravity modeling methods. The findings showed that 12.22% of the studied countries had a high degree of risk, 25.56% – a medium level of risk, 25.56% – a risk below the average level, for 36.66% of countries – the risk was almost absent.  

Keywords: neobanks, innovation financial technologies, cyber frauds risks, digital evolution components, gravity model analysis.

JEL Classification: C13, G14, G20.

Cite as: Koibichuk, V., Ostrovska, N., Kashiyeva, F., & Kwilinski, A. (2021). Innovation technology and cyber frauds risks of neobanks: gravity model analysis. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 253-265. https://doi.org/10.21272/mmi.2021.1-19

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License

References

1. Access Private Market Data СB Insights: Neobank. Retrieved from [Link]
2. Akimova, L., Akimov, O., Mihus, I., Koval, Y., & Dmitrenko, V. (2020). Improvement of the methodological approach to assessing the impact of public governance on ensuring the economic security of the state. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 4(35), 180-190. [Google Scholar]
3. Akimova, L. M., Akimov, O. O., & Liakhovich, O. O. (2017). State regulation of foreign economic activity. Scientific bulletin of Polissia, 1(4 (12)), 98-103.. [Google Scholar]
4. Aleksander, A., Krawczyk, D., Kuzior, A., & Kwilinski, A. (2020). ‘The Conditions Affecting the Functioning of the Mass Media and Social Media Based on Empirical Research Conducted in Ukraine.’ In Khalid S. Soliman (Ed.), Proceedings of the 36th International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA) 4-5 November 2020 (pp. 10330-10342). Granada, Spain: IBIMA Publishing. Retrieved from [Link]
5. Bagmet, K. V., & Haponova, O. (2018). Assessing the Impact on Social Sector: a Macroeconomic Approach. SocioEconomic Challenges, (2, Iss. 3), 103-108. [Googlle Scholar] [CrossRef]
6. Bilan, Y., Brychko, M., Buriak, A., & Vasilyeva, T. (2019a). Financial, business and trust cycles: The issues of synchronization. Zbornik Radova Ekonomskog Fakultet au Rijeci, 37(1), 113-138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
7. Bilan, Y., Rubanov, P., Vasylieva, T., & Lyeonov, S. (2019b). The influence of industry 4.0 on financial services: Determinants of alternative finance development. Polish Journal of Management Studies, 19(1), 70-93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
8. Bogachov, S., Kwilinski, A., Miethlich, B., Bartosova, V., & Gurnak, A. (2020). Artificial intelligence components and fuzzy regulators in entrepreneurship development. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 8(2), 487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
9. Buriak, A., & Artemenko, A. (2018). Reputation risk in banking: application for Ukraine. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 2(2). 100-110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
10. Buriak, A., Lyeonov, S., & Vasylieva, T. (2015). Systemically important domestic banks: An indicator-based measurement approach for the Ukrainian banking system. Prague Economic Papers, 24(6), 715-728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
11. Caporale, G. M., Plastun, A., & Oliinyk, V. (2019). Bitcoin fluctuations and the frequency of price overreactions. Financial Markets and Portfolio Management, 33(2), 109-131. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
12. Chakravorti, В., Bhalla, A. & Chaturvedi, R. (2020). Which Economies Showed the Most Digital Progress in 2020. Retrieved from [Link]
13. Dalevska, N., Khobta, V., Kwilinski, A., & Kravchenko, S. (2019). A model for estimating social and economic indicators of sustainable development. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 6(4), 1839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
14. Digital Evolution Index (DEI). Retrieved from [Link]
15. Dove, M., Balasubramanian, A., & Narayanan, B.G. (2020). Transparency as a way of attaining quality, safety and optimal food purchases. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(4). 48-62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
16. Dzwigol, H. (2020). Innovation in Marketing Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 1, 128-135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
17. Dzwigol, H., & Dźwigoł-Barosz, M. (2018). Scientific Research Methodology in Management Sciences. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice, 2(25), 424-437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
18. Dzwigol, H., Dzwigol-Barosz, M., Miśkiewicz, R., & Kwilinski, A. (2020). Manager competency assessment model in the conditions of industry 4.0. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(4), 2630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
19. Electronic Money Institution (EMI). Retrieved from [Link]
20. Ferwerda, J., Kattenberg, M., Chang, H. H., Unger, B., Groot, L., & Bikker, J. (2011). Gravity Models of Trade-Based Money Laundering. DNB Working Paper, 318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
21. Giebe, C., Hammerström, L., & Zwerenz, D. (2019). Big data & analytics as a sustainable customer loyalty instrument in banking and finance. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 3(4). 74-88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
22. Juarez-Garcia, M. I. (2020). Personal Corruption & Corrupting Laws: Montesquieu’s Twofold Theory of Corruption. Business Ethics and Leadership, 4(4), 76-83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
23. Karpa, M. I., Akimova, L. M., Akimov, O. O., Serohina, N., Oleshko, O., & Lipovska, N. (2021). Public administration as a systemic phenomenon in society. AD ALTA: Journal of interdisciplinary research, (11), 56-62. [Google Scholar]
24. Kharazishvili, Y., Kwilinski, A., Grishnova, O., & Dzwigol, H. (2020). Social Safety of Society for Developing Countries to Meet Sustainable Development Standards: Indicators, Level, Strategic Benchmarks (with Calculations Based on the Case Study of Ukraine). Sustainability, 12(21), 8953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
25. Kuzior, A., Kwilinski, A., & Tkachenko, V. (2019). Sustainable development of organizations based on the combinatorial model of artificial intelligence. Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues, 7(2), 1353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
26. Kwilinski, A., & Kuzior, A. (2020). Cognitive Technologies in the Management and Formation of Directions of the Priority Development of Industrial Enterprises. Management Systems in Production Engineering, 28(2), 133-138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
27. Kwilinski, A., Vyshnevskyi, O., & Dzwigol, H. (2020). Digitalization of the EU Economies and People at Risk of Poverty or Social Exclusion. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(7), 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
28. Kyrylov, Y., Hranovska, V., Boiko, V., Kwilinski, A., & Boiko, L. (2020). International Tourism Development in the Context of Increasing Globalization Risks: On the Example of Ukraine’s Integration into the Global Tourism Industry. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(12), 303. [CrossRef]
29. Levchenko, V., Boyko, A., Bozhenko, V., Savchenko, T., Humenna, Y., & Pilin R. (2019). State regulation of the economic security by applying the neoteric approach to its assessment. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4, 364-372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
30. Levchenko, V., Kobzieva, T., Boiko, A., & Shlapko, T. (2018). Innovations in assessing the efficiency of the instruments for the national economy de-shadowing: the state management aspect. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 4. 361-371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
31. Lopez, B., García, D., & Alcaide, A. (2019). Blockchain Technology Facing Socioeconomic Challenges. Promise versus Probability. SocioEconomic Challenges, 3(4). 13-24. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
32. Lyeonov, S., Żurakowska-Sawa, J., Kuzmenko, O., & Koibichuk, V. (2020). Gravitational and Intellectual Data Analysis to Assess the Money Laundering risk of Financial Institutions. Journal of International Studies, 13(4), 259-272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
33. Lyulyov, O., Pimonenko, T., Kwilinski, A., Dzwigol, H., Dzwigol-Barosz, M., Pavlyk, V., & Barosz, P. (2021). The Impact of the Government Policy on the Energy Efficient Gap: The Evidence from Ukraine. Energies, 14(2), 373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
34. Lyulyov, O., Us, Y., Pimonenko, T., Kwilinski, A., Vasylieva, T., Dalevska, N., Polcyn, J., & Boiko, V. (2020). The Link between Economic Growth and Tourism: Covid-19 Impact. In Khalid S. Soliman (Ed.), Proceedings of the 36th International Business Information Management Association (IBIMA) 4-5 November 2020 (pp. 8070-8086). Granada, Spain: IBIMA Publishing. [Google Scholar]
35. Maksimova, T., Zhdanova, O., & Bondarenko, T. (2020). Risk typology for peer-to-peer lending in a financial architecture transformed by digitalization and the epidemiological situation. International Journal of Pharmaceutical Research, 12(4). 3674-3678. [CrossRef]
36. Melnychenko, O. (2019). Application of artificial intelligence in control systems of economic activity. Virtual Economics, 2(3), 30-40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
37. Melnychenko, O. (2020). Is Artificial Intelligence Ready to Assess an Enterprise’s Financial Security? Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 13(9),191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
38. Melnychenko, O. (2021). The Energy of Finance in Refining of Medical Surge Capacity. Energies, 14(1), 210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
39. Milon, K., Nur-Al-Ahad, M., & Monjurul Alam, A. B. M. (2018). The Deployment of Next Generation Access Network in the EU: Facts and Analysis of Regulatory Issues. Business Ethics and Leadership, 2(4). 6-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef
40. Miśkiewicz, R. (2019). Challenges facing management practice in the light of Industry 4.0: The example of Poland. Virtual Economics, 2(2), 37-47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
41. Miśkiewicz, R. (2020a). Efficiency of Electricity Production Technology from Post-Process Gas Heat: Ecological, Economic and Social Benefits. Energies, 13(22), 6106. [Google Scholar][CrossRef]
42. Miskiewicz, R. (2020b). Internet of Things in Marketing: Bibliometric Analysis. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3, 371-381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
43. Miśkiewicz, R. (2021). The Impact of Innovation and Information Technology on Greenhouse Gas Emissions: A Case of the Visegrád Countries. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 14(2), 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
44. Mursalov, M., Zeynalov, Z., Huseynova, A., Lyeonov, S., Kuzmenko, O., & Bozhenko, V. (2020). Forecasting the risk of money laundering through financial intermediaries in Ukraine. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 4.(35). 191-201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
45. Naser, N. (2019). The Interaction between Profitability and Macroeconomic Factors for Future Examinations of European Banks Soundness – Theoretical Study. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 3(3), 63-97. [Googlle Scholar] [CrossRef]
46. Neobanks: a study on key traffic channels. Research from Accenture 2019. (2020). Retrieved from [Link]
47. Nur-Al-Ahad, M., & Nusrat, S. (2019). New Trends in Behavioral Economics: A Content Analysis of Social Communications of Youth. Business Ethics and Leadership, 3(3). 107-115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
48. Pająk, K., Kvilinskyi, O., Fasiecka, O., & Miskiewicz, R. (2017). Energy security in regional policy in Wielkopolska region of Poland. Economics and Environment, 2(61), 122-138. [Google Scholar]
49. Rubanov, P., Vasylieva, T., Lyeonov, S., & Pokhylko, S. (2019). Cluster analysis of development of alternative finance models depending on the regional affiliation of countries. Business and Economic Horizons, 15(1). 90-106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
50. Savchenko, T., Koibichuk, V., Boyko, A., & Minchenko, M. (2020). Risk assessment of the banking groups usage in the shadow activities. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 4(35). 37-43. [CrossRef]
51. Stagmeier, C., & Friedental, G. (2020). Neobank 2021: in races to profitability. Strategy and Management. Retrieved from [Link]
52. Ukrainian Financial Sector Transformation: digital financeю (2019). Rertrieved from [Link]
53. Strielkowski, W., & Höschle, F. (2016). Evidence for economic convergence in the EU: The analysis of past EU enlargements. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 22(4), 617-630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
54. Us, H., Malyarets, L., Chudaieva, I., & Martynova, O. (2018). Multi-Criteria Optimization of the Balanced Scorecard for the Enterprise’s Activity Evaluation: Management Tool for Business-Innovations. Marketing and Management of Innovations, 3. 48-58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
55. Vasilyeva, T., Lyeonov, S., Adamičková, I., & Bagmet, K. (2018a). Institutional quality of social sector: The essence and measurements. Economics & Sociology, 11(2), 248-262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
56. Vasylieva, T. A., Leonov, S. V., Kryvych, Y. N., & Buriak, A. V. (2017). Bank 3.0 concept: global trends and implications. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 1(22), 4-10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
57. Vasylieva, T., Lyeonov, S., Lyulyov, O., & Kyrychenko, K. (2018b). Macroeconomic stability and its impact on the economic growth of the country. Montenegrin journal of economics, 14(1), 159-170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
58. Yarovenko, H., Kuzmenko, O., & Stumpo, M. (2020). Strategy for Determining Country Ranking by Level of Cybersecurity. Financial Markets, Institutions and Risks, 4(3). 124-137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
59. Zolkover, A., & Terziev, V. (2020). The Shadow Economy: A Bibliometric Analysis. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(3). 107-118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
60. Zwerenz, D. (2020). Performance incentives to increase motivation; potentials of meaningful activities in project management. SocioEconomic Challenges, 4(3). 95-118. [CrossRef]
61. Zahorskyi, V. S., Lipentsev, A. V., Yurystovska, N. Y., Mazii, N. H., & Akimov, O. O. (2019). Financial and administrative aspects of small business development in Ukraine. Financial and credit activity: problems of theory and practice, 3(30), 351-360. [Google Scholar]