Agentic payments could change a basic assumption in fraud investigation: that the person who owns the payment account is also the immediate decision-maker behind the transaction. As AI agents begin to search, select and potentially execute transactions within delegated parameters, investigators may need to reconstruct not only who authenticated a payment, but what authority was given to the agent, how that authority was exercised and whether the resulting action remained within its mandate. When AI Agents Move Money: From Delegated Authority to Investigative Reconstruction Key Points Agentic payments can separate human intent, delegated authority, machine decision-making, authentication and transaction execution into distinct stages. Evidence from one stage should not automatically be treated as conclusive evidence about another. Successful authentication may establish that a recognised credential, agent or process was used without necessarily establishing that the particular transacti...

The relationship explains how a victim may have been persuaded to transfer money. It does not necessarily explain who organised the fraud, where the money went or what infrastructure supported the deception. Investigating relationship-based investment fraud therefore requires investigators to move beyond the victim-facing persona and examine payment chronology, beneficiary accounts, cryptocurrency infrastructure, digital identifiers, corporate entities and connections with other victims. The investigative challenge is to connect those elements without treating an association, indicator or analytical pattern as proof of criminal involvement. Moving from relationship development and payment escalation to financial tracing, network mapping and evidence-based investigative outcomes. Key Points Romance fraud, investment fraud and hybrid relationship-based investment fraud overlap, but they should not be treated as interchangeable typologies. The relationship narrative may explain victim per...