JP2009064127A - Automatic transaction system, server, and automatic transaction device - Google Patents

Abstract

<P>PROBLEM TO BE SOLVED: To secure necessary transaction even when a user himself/herself performs fair transaction by integrally judging a plurality of evaluation items in order to prevent unfair transaction in an automatic transaction device. <P>SOLUTION: The transaction circumstances of a user are stored as data related with a plurality of risk evaluation items, and whether or not the stored data has reached a predetermined risk level is determined. The individual evaluations of the risk evaluation items whose data have reached the predetermined risk level are added under the consideration of weighting, and the prescribed use restriction is instructed to this automatic transaction device as the result of addition. <P>COPYRIGHT: (C)2009,JPO&INPIT

Description

  The present invention relates to an automatic transaction apparatus installed in a financial institution or the like and capable of performing a financial transaction by a customer operation.

In automatic transaction equipment (ATM: Automatic Teller Machine) installed at each financial institution's branch, convenience store, gas station, supermarket, etc. When a personal identification number to be configured is input and it matches a personal identification number registered in advance, what is determined as “customer” is widely used.

  Recently, techniques for preventing unauthorized transactions due to cash card skimming have been developed. That is, in JP-A-2002-133332, a cumulative limit amount or cumulative limit number from a user is stored, and if the cumulative amount or cumulative number exceeds the limit amount or limit number in a payment transaction, the payment transaction from the user is performed. A technique is described in which an instruction is not accepted and the cumulative amount and the cumulative number of times can be reset upon request from a user.

  Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2002-288424 performs ranking according to the degree of security based on the type of cash card and the input personal verification data, and enables setting of the transaction type and transaction limit according to the rank. The technology is described.

Furthermore, Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open No. 2007-48118 discloses a technique that allows a transaction limit amount to be switched instead of canceling a transaction when the person is denied in the result of collation based on the biometric feature information of the customer. ing.
JP 2002-133332 A JP 2002-288424 A JP 2007-48118 A

  However, since the technology described in each of the above patent documents is a simple and biased item such as the number of transactions and the transaction amount, the evaluation items for preventing unauthorized transactions in the automatic transaction apparatus are legitimate transactions. However, even if it was done, there was a problem that it was impossible to secure the necessary transactions. This has the problem of reducing customer satisfaction.

  The present invention can secure necessary transactions even when the user himself / herself makes a legitimate transaction by comprehensively judging a plurality of evaluation items in the automatic transaction apparatus in order to prevent unauthorized transactions in the automatic transaction apparatus. An automatic transaction apparatus configured as described above is provided.

In order to solve the above-mentioned problems, the present invention provides an automatic transaction system according to claim 1, wherein an automatic transaction apparatus for performing a transaction by a user's operation using a cash card, and the automatic transaction apparatus And a host computer connected via a communication line, and having an accumulating means for accumulating the user's transaction status as data relating to a plurality of risk assessment items, There is a judgment means for judging whether or not the data stored in the storage means has reached a predetermined risk level, and an instruction means for instructing the automatic transaction apparatus to use a predetermined limit based on the judgment of the judgment means.

According to the present invention, since a plurality of evaluation items are comprehensively judged, it is possible to prevent the risk of misrecognizing a registrant by mistake, and the registrant himself conducts a legitimate transaction. In this case, there is an effect that necessary transactions can be secured. Accordingly, it is possible to maintain and improve customer satisfaction.

  On the other hand, it has an accumulation means for accumulating user transaction status as data relating to a plurality of risk evaluation items, and further determines whether the data accumulated in the accumulation means has reached a predetermined risk level. Therefore, it has the effect of being able to judge objectively and rationally without depending on the individual skill and experience of the person who evaluates and judges.

  The best mode for carrying out the invention will be described below with reference to the drawings. FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of a system in the best mode for carrying out the invention of the present invention. In the figure, reference numeral 1 denotes a host computer maintained and managed by a financial institution such as a bank, which stores and manages customer attribute information such as account number, deposit balance, customer name, customer address, and password for each customer. Information File (customer information file) 4 and an account processing unit 5 and a risk evaluation unit 6 which will be described later.

  Reference numeral 3 denotes an automatic transaction apparatus (ATM) installed at a main branch of a financial institution, a convenience store, etc., which performs deposit / withdrawal processing, remittance processing, and the like by customer operations. The ATM 3 is connected to the accounting system processing unit 5 of the host computer 1 via the dedicated line 2. The account processing unit 5 executes transactions involving renewal of ledgers of various bank accounts, which are key operations of financial institutions such as deposit / withdrawal processing and remittance processing. In addition, the risk evaluation unit 6 monitors transactions at the ATM 3 and has a predetermined rule for judging whether or not the transaction is fraudulent, and which rule should be executed depending on the transaction status (occurrence event). to decide.

  When an account transaction such as a payment transaction is executed in the ATM 3, there is a risk evaluation reference from the account processing unit 5 to the risk evaluation unit 6. When the risk evaluation unit 6 receives a reference from the account processing unit 5, the rule base engine 10 of the risk evaluation unit 6 performs risk evaluation based on the rules stored and stored in the rule base 11.

  FIG. 2 is a block diagram illustrating the internal structure of the host computer 1. The risk evaluation unit 6 includes a rule base engine 10 as a control unit that performs determination and control according to a predetermined rule, and a rule base 11 that stores the rule. The rule base 11 includes an external storage device such as a magnetic disk or a magnetic drum, and includes a risk evaluation item section 12 in which a plurality of risk evaluation items corresponding to a customer account, which will be described later, are stored. The risk evaluation items stored in the risk evaluation item section 12 are, for example, “a rate of increase / decrease in deposit balance per week”, “number of transactions per week”, and the like, which will be described in detail later.

  The rule base 11 further includes a risk level unit 13 in which a rule indicating what risk level the occurrence event has reached is stored for each risk evaluation item stored in the risk evaluation item unit 12. And after determination of a risk level for every risk evaluation item in the rule base engine 10, it has the weighting part 14 for further weighting this determination result. Furthermore, it has the individual evaluation part 15 which individually evaluates the result for every risk evaluation item, and has the comprehensive evaluation part 16 which adds the individual evaluation for every said risk evaluation item, and obtains comprehensive evaluation.

  51 is a transaction history table, 61 is a risk level reference value table, and 17 is a usage restriction determination table. The transaction history table 51 stores a transaction history for each account number as will be described later with reference to FIG. 5, and the risk level reference value table 61 includes the transaction history as described later with reference to FIG. Corresponding risk levels (A, B, C) are stored, and the use restriction determination table 17 stores the contents of use restrictions for each risk level as will be described later with reference to FIG. The result of comprehensive evaluation by the comprehensive evaluation unit 16 is checked against the use restriction determination table 17 to determine the contents of use restriction. Details will be described later.

  FIG. 3 is a flowchart showing the operation of the account processing unit 5 of the host computer 1 in the case of a payment transaction by ATM3.

  First, a transaction selection screen (not shown) is displayed in ATM 3, and when a payment transaction is selected by a customer, a password and a payment amount are input. When the customer presses the confirmation key, the transaction key information, the password, and the payment amount are transmitted to the accounting system processing unit 5 of the host computer 1 via the dedicated line 2. Upon receipt of these (S101), the bill processing unit 5 collates the personal identification number of the customer stored in the CIF 4 with the personal identification number received from the ATM 3 (S102).

  If the passwords do not match, the transaction history table 51 described later is updated via the rule base engine 10 of the host computer 1. That is, the new number of errors is recorded in the transaction history table 51 (S104). Thereafter, the bill processing unit 5 edits the message of the password mismatch and transmits it to the ATM 3 (S107).

  In the case of a password match, a transaction history table 51 described later is updated via the rule base engine 10 of the host computer 1. That is, the deposit balance after the transaction, the transaction date, the transaction store, the use time zone, the transaction function, and the number of errors are recorded in the transaction history table 51 from the transaction (S108).

  Next, the bill processing unit 5 refers to the risk evaluation unit 6 and receives a control code corresponding to a risk level described later (S110). In step 111, when the received control code is a usage restriction, that is, a withdrawal limit amount instruction or withdrawal withdrawal, etc., the account processing unit 5 edits a message to that effect (S115) and is not shown. The data is transmitted to ATM 3 by the transmission means (S116). At this time, CIF4 is not updated.

  On the other hand, if the received control code is normal in step 111, the account processing unit 5 edits the transaction date, payment amount, balance, summary, etc. (S112) and transmits it to the ATM 3 by a transmission means (not shown) ( S113). When the ATM3 processing is normally completed, the CIF4 is updated (S114).

  In the case where the usage restriction message is transmitted to the ATM 3 in the above step 116, when the ATM 3 receives the usage restriction code from the host computer 1, it does not perform the withdrawal process. For example, as shown in FIG. Is displayed on the customer operation display unit 71 and waits for the customer to re-operate.

  FIG. 4 is an explanatory diagram showing the relationship between the risk evaluation items and the risk level for each risk evaluation item, and further calculating the individual evaluation and the comprehensive evaluation after weighting.

  In a cash transaction such as ATM3 deposit / withdrawal transaction, a method for monitoring the number of transactions within a certain period of time, the transition of deposit balance, and the like is known as means for judging fraudulent transactions. In the present invention, the risk evaluation item is for a financial institution to judge a transaction performed by a person other than a regular user (depositor or registrant) as a fraudulent transaction or a risk in transactions involving cash in ATM3. A judgment item. Since it is not always possible to make an accurate judgment with only one evaluation item, a plurality of risk evaluation items are monitored and risk is judged comprehensively by a predetermined logical judgment in order to further improve the accuracy of risk judgment.

  As shown in FIG. 4, the present invention sets a certain period, for example, one week, and monitors the following six risk assessment items. That is, “1: rate of increase / decrease of deposit balance per week”, “2: number of transactions per week”, “3: new transaction store in the past week”, “4: use time zone in the past week”, “5: New transaction function in the past week” and “6: Error history in the past week”.

  Even the registrant himself may take the above action. Therefore, there are cases where it is clearly determined that the transaction is illegal or dangerous with one evaluation item, and there are cases where it is determined that the transaction is illegal or dangerous by confirming the relationship with other evaluation items. Since it is necessary to judge these comprehensively, the risk levels (A, B, C) described below are considered.

  That is, the risk level refers to a quality level that indicates unnaturalness, danger, and anomaly regarding user behavior as determined by a financial institution in cash-related transactions in ATM3.

  The standard is as follows. However, it may vary depending on the person's age and occupation. That is, the risk level is classified into three levels of A (quasi-natural behavior type), B (boundary type), and C (unnatural behavior type), and the risk levels A, B, and C are associated with the occurrence events for each risk evaluation item. .

  Risk level A (quasi-natural behavior type) means that there is a certain level of risk but there is a certain risk, or that the behavior of the registrant is a less frequent action that can be taken As a countermeasure, follow-up is necessary.

  Risk level B (boundary type) means that the degree of risk is moderate, or that the registrant can take actions that are rare but possible due to some reasonable circumstances and circumstances. As a countermeasure, attention is required.

  Risk level C (unnatural behavior type) means that the frequency of occurrence is low and the degree of risk is high, or even if it is reasonably considered, it cannot be said to be an action taken by the person. Considering the ambiguity of evaluation judgment and management effort, the above three steps are the most fair.

  On the other hand, “Rate increase / decrease rate of deposit balance per week” of risk assessment item 1 is risk level A, 30% or more when the increase / decrease rate of the balance for a week is 20% or more and less than 30% for the account in question. When it is less than 50%, the risk level is B, and when it is 50% or more, the risk level is C.

  In addition, regarding the risk evaluation item 2 “number of transactions per week”, the risk level A when the number of transactions per week is 5 to 9 times, risk level B when the number of transactions is 10 to 19 times. If it is 20 times or more, the risk level is C.

  For risk assessment item 3, “new store in the past week”, risk level A when there was ATM usage at another bank in the past week, risk level B when ATM at a convenience store was set up, Risk level C when mobile terminals such as mobile phones are used.

  Regarding the “Usage time in the past week” of risk assessment item 4, risk level A when there was early morning trading in the past week, risk level B when there was night trading, and late night trading When there is a risk level C.

  Regarding risk assessment item 5, “New transaction function in the past week”, there was risk level A when there was a loan transaction in the past week, risk level B when there was a remittance transaction, and a PIN change transaction. Risk level C.

  Regarding the “error history in the past week” of the risk evaluation item 6, there is a risk level A when the PIN code error is 1 time in the past week, a risk level B when the PIN code error is 2 times, and a biometric authentication error. Risk level C.

  Assuming that the rate of increase / decrease in the deposit balance per week of the customer A is 25%, the risk rate A indicated by hatching in FIG. It is judged that (quasi-natural behavior type) has been reached.

  Further, assuming that the number of transactions per week by the customer A is 3, it is not determined that the risk evaluation item 2 “number of transactions per week” has reached the risk level.

  Assuming that the customer's new trading store in the past week is ATM use at a convenience store, the risk level B (borderline type) shown in hatching in FIG. ).

  Further, assuming that the usage time zone of the customer A in the past week is a late-night transaction, the risk usage item “risk level C ( Unnatural behavior type) is determined.

  Furthermore, assuming that there was no loan, remittance, or change of PIN for the new transaction in the past week of the customer A, the risk level of “New transaction function in the past week” of risk assessment item 5 has reached the risk level. Not judged.

  Furthermore, assuming that the error history of the customer A in the past week has an error in the personal identification number, the “error history in the past week” of the risk evaluation item 6 is the risk level A shown by hatching in FIG. It is judged that (quasi-natural behavior type) has been reached.

  Next, each risk assessment item is weighted in four stages from the viewpoint of urgency and monetary importance. Weighing 1 is set to indicate that the degree of risk is minor, weighting 2 is set for possible fraud, weighting 3 is set for possible damage, and weighting 4 is set to be set for high possibility of financial damage .

  In the example of Customer A in FIG. 4, the risk assessment item 1 “rate of increase / decrease in deposit balance per week” has a risk level of A as described above, and the weight is “1”, so the individual assessment is A point. .

  As described above, the risk evaluation item 3 “new dealer in the past week” has a risk level of B and a weight of “2”, so the individual evaluation is 2B points.

  As described above, the risk evaluation item 4 “usage time zone in the past one week” has a risk level of C and a weight of “1”, so the individual evaluation is C point.

  Further, the risk evaluation item 6 “error history in the past one week” has a risk level of A as described above, and the weight is “3”, so the individual evaluation is 3A points.

  When the individual evaluation for each risk evaluation item is calculated, the rule base engine 10 adds them in consideration of the weighting, and calculates a comprehensive evaluation. In the case of customer A, the overall evaluation is “4A point + 2B point + C point”.

  FIG. 5 is a configuration diagram showing a transaction history table 51 for storing a transaction history. Corresponding to the account number 1234567 of the customer A's ordinary deposit, the column “Rate of increase / decrease in deposit balance per week” of the risk assessment item 1 assumes that the transaction date is August 7, 2007. The balance as of August 1, 2007, which is a week before, is stored as 10 million yen, the balance as of August 2, the following day is 9 million yen, and August 6, the previous day, is stored as 7.5 million yen. The weight “1” of the risk evaluation item 1 is stored in the transaction history table 51.

  The rule base engine 10 reads the transaction history of the history part (1) from the transaction history table 51 and calculates the “increase / decrease rate of deposit balance per week”. The calculation method is, for example, a method of calculating a decrease rate of 25% from the previous week's balance (10 million yen) and the latest balance (7.5 million yen) as described above, or the average value of the deposit balance for one week. This is compared with the deposit balance after this transaction and the rate of change is calculated, or the difference between the deposit balance after this transaction and all the remaining deposit balances is calculated and the rate of change is calculated from the maximum difference. There are methods, but there is no particular limitation.

  FIG. 5 also shows that “number of transactions per week” of risk evaluation item 2 is stored in the history part (2) for a total of three times on August 1, 2007, 2nd, and 6th. ing.

  FIG. 6 is a configuration diagram showing a reference value table 61 for determining a risk level for each risk evaluation item. If risk assessment item 1 “Change rate of deposit balance per week” is 20% or more and less than 30%, risk level A, if it is 30% or more and less than 50%, risk level B, if it is 50% or more, risk level “C” indicates that it is stored. Furthermore, when the “number of transactions per week” of the risk evaluation item 2 is 5 to 9 times, it is a risk level A, when it is 10 to 19 times, it is a risk level B, and when it is 20 times or more, it is a risk level C. That is stored. The rule base engine 10 determines from the transaction history stored in the transaction history table 51 that the risk level A, B, or C has been reached based on the reference value table 61. In the description of FIG. 5, it has been described that the weight of the risk evaluation item 1 is stored in the transaction history table 51, but may be stored in the reference value table 61.

  FIG. 7 is a configuration diagram of a use restriction determination table 17 for determining use restrictions corresponding to evaluation points for each risk level of comprehensive evaluation. FIG. 8 is an explanatory diagram showing a usage example of the usage restriction determination table 17. The customer's comprehensive evaluation (see FIG. 4) was “4A point + 2B point + C point”. In the use restriction determination table 17, the use restriction is determined by the total points for each of the risk levels A, B, and C.

That is, the rule-based engine 10 determines that the total score of risk level A (quasi-natural behavior type) is 4A points or more and the usage limit is “draw limit limit 50,000 yen”, and the total score of risk level B (boundary type) Is 3B points or more, the usage limit is “drawer limit amount 50,000 yen”, 4B points or more is determined to be “remittance of remittance”, and the total score of risk level C (unnatural behavior type) is 2C points. The limit is 20,000 yen, and it is determined that the usage limit is “withdrawal” at 3C points or more. Therefore, the comprehensive evaluation of customer A is as shown by hatching in FIG. 8, and only the risk level A has reached the predetermined risk level 4A, so the usage limit of customer A is “the withdrawal limit is 50,000 yen. Is determined by the rule-based engine 10. This result is returned as a control code to the bill processing unit 5.

  FIG. 9 is a flowchart showing the operation of the risk evaluation unit 6. Now, when account processing such as a payment transaction with a customer occurs, the account processing unit 5 of the host computer 1 operates and refers to the risk evaluation unit 6 to determine the risk of the transaction. When the rule base engine 10 as the control unit of the risk evaluation unit 6 receives a reference from the account processing unit 5 (S201), the rule base engine 10 stores the transaction history table 51 shown in FIG. 5 and the risk level reference value table 61 shown in FIG. Read (S202).

  Next, the rule-based engine 10 calculates the rate of increase / decrease of the deposit balance per week from the risk evaluation item 1: deposit balance increase / decrease rate / week history part (1) of the transaction history table 51 (S203).

  The rule base engine 10 compares the calculated increase / decrease rate with the risk level reference value table 61 shown in FIG. 6, and determines that any one of the risk levels A to C has been reached (S204). The risk levels A to C determined here are multiplied by the weight stored in the transaction history table 51 to obtain individual evaluation (S205).

  Hereinafter, similarly, the rule base engine 10 calculates an individual evaluation value for each risk evaluation item (S206). When the calculation of the individual evaluation of all the risk evaluation items is completed, these are summed to calculate the comprehensive evaluation (S207). Based on the comprehensive evaluation, the use restriction determination table 17 of FIG. 7 is referred to, and the use restriction control code is determined (S208). Then, the risk evaluation unit 6 transmits a use restriction control code for transmitting the contents of the use restriction such as “withdrawal limit of 50,000 yen” from the transmission means (not shown) to the bill processing unit 5 (S209).

According to the best mode for carrying out the invention as described above, since a plurality of evaluation items are comprehensively judged, it is possible to prevent a risk of erroneous recognition even though the person is the registrant. When the person himself / herself makes a legitimate transaction, the necessary transaction can be secured. On the other hand, it has an accumulation means for accumulating user transaction status as data relating to a plurality of risk evaluation items, and further determines whether the data accumulated in the accumulation means has reached a predetermined risk level. As a result, it is possible to make an objective and rational judgment that does not depend on the individual skill and experience of the person making the judgment.

FIG. 10 is a schematic diagram of a system according to the first embodiment. In the best mode for carrying out the invention, the risk evaluation unit 6 is provided in the host computer 1, but in the first embodiment, the risk evaluation unit 6 is provided in a server 7 independent of the host computer 1. The server 7 includes a risk evaluation unit 6, and the configuration of the risk evaluation unit 6 is the same as the description of the best mode for carrying out the invention.

  At this time, the transaction history table 51 stores the occurrence events related to the risk for each transaction for risk evaluation, and the rule base engine 10 as a control unit performs the management and control. For this reason, it is necessary for the server 7 to receive almost all the information of the accounting transactions transmitted and received between the host computer 1 and the ATM 3. As a method for this, there is a method in which a front-end processor (not shown) is provided in front of the host computer 1 and connected to the server 7 via a line, or a method in which the host computer 1 and the server 7 are connected via a local area network.

  As described above, according to the first embodiment, the addition of the system for risk evaluation can be performed without significant changes with respect to the previous system centered on the host computer 1.

In the best mode for carrying out the invention, the configuration in which the transaction history table 51 of FIG. 5 is stored and stored in the rule base 11 as an external storage device of the host computer 1 has been described. However, the transaction history table 51 in the second embodiment is described. Is stored in a portable storage medium such as the customer's IC card 70.

  FIG. 11 is a schematic diagram of a system according to the second embodiment. In the figure, the host computer 1 maintained and managed by the financial institution and the CIF 4 for storing and managing customer attribute information such as account number, deposit balance, customer name, customer address, password, etc. for each customer are described above. Since it is the same as the description of the best mode, the description is used.

  Reference numeral 3 denotes an ATM installed at a main branch of a financial institution, a convenience store, etc., which performs deposit / withdrawal processing, remittance processing, and the like by customer operations. The ATM 3 is connected to the accounting processing unit 5 of the host computer 1 via the dedicated line 2, and transmission / reception of the message is performed by the transmission unit 72 and the reception unit 73. Reference numeral 70 denotes an IC card possessed by the customer. The card processing unit 75 exchanges customer attribute information and transaction history information with the IC card 70. Reference numeral 71 denotes a customer operation display unit in which the customer performs operations such as transaction selection while viewing the display. 74 is a money deposit / withdrawal unit for depositing / withdrawing bills and coins, and 76 is a memory unit for storing information necessary for these controls. These controls are performed by the control unit 77.

  In ATM3, when a transaction key displayed on the customer operation display unit 71, for example, a “payment key” is pressed by a customer (not shown), a payment transaction is started. Following the payment key depression, the customer inserts the IC card 70 into the card processing unit 75 and inputs the personal identification number and the payment amount into the customer operation display unit 71. Then, the control unit 77 controls the card processing unit 75 to read the information on the category of the deposit item, the account number, and the transaction history table 51 from the IC card 70. These pieces of information are temporarily stored in the memory unit 76 under the control of the control unit 77, but are transmitted to the host computer 1 via the transmission unit 72 when the customer presses the confirmation key of the customer operation display unit 71.

  In the accounting system processing unit 5 of the host computer 1, the processing as shown in FIG. 3 is executed. Similarly to the above description, the accounting system processing unit 5 refers to the risk evaluation unit 6, and the risk evaluation 6 performs risk evaluation.

  If the control code received by the accounting processor 5 is a usage restriction, that is, “withdrawal limit of 50,000 yen” in step 111 of FIG. 3, the accounting processor 5 sends a message to that effect. Edit (S115) and send to ATM3 (S116). In ATM3, when the receiving part 73 receives this, the control part 77 will control the customer operation display part 71, and will display the message on the said customer operation display part 71. FIG.

  FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram in which the customer operation display unit 71 displays a usage restriction message of “withdrawal limit 50,000 yen”. Thus, the customer presses the cancel key 80 to end the transaction.

  As described above, the operation of the second embodiment is almost the same as the best mode for carrying out the invention. However, in the second embodiment, the transaction history table 51 is stored and stored in the customer's IC card 70. The contents of the transaction history table 51 are included in the message transmitted from the host computer 1 to the host computer 1, and the transaction history table 51 updated by the account processing unit 5 is included in the transmission data to the ATM 3 in step 113 of FIG. 3. Is different.

  As described above, according to the second embodiment, since the transaction history table 51 is stored and stored in the customer's IC card 70, it is not necessary to provide the host computer 1 with a large-scale external storage device.

1 is a system schematic diagram in a best mode for carrying out the invention of the present invention. 2 is a configuration diagram illustrating an internal structure of a host computer 1. FIG. It is a flowchart which shows operation | movement of the account type | system | group process part 5 in the case of payment transaction. It is explanatory drawing which shows the method of calculating the relationship between a risk evaluation item and a risk level, and comprehensive evaluation. It is a block diagram which shows the transaction log | history table 51. FIG. It is a block diagram which shows the reference value table 61 of a risk level. 4 is a configuration diagram of a usage restriction determination table 17. FIG. It is explanatory drawing which shows the usage example of the use restriction determination table. 7 is a flowchart showing the operation of the risk evaluation unit 6. 1 is a system schematic diagram of Embodiment 1. FIG. FIG. 6 is a system schematic diagram of Embodiment 2. It is explanatory drawing which displays the message of the customer operation display part 71. FIG.

Explanation of symbols

1 Host computer 3 ATM
4 CIF
5 Account System Processing Unit 6 Risk Evaluation Unit 10 Rule Base Engine 11 Rule Base 12 Risk Evaluation Item Unit 13 Risk Level Unit 14 Weighting Unit 15 Individual Evaluation Unit 16 Comprehensive Evaluation Unit 17 Usage Restriction Determination Table 51 Transaction History Table 61 Risk Level Criteria Value table

Claims (14)

In an automatic transaction system having an automatic transaction apparatus that performs a transaction by a user's operation using a portable storage medium, and a host computer connected to the automatic transaction apparatus via a communication line,
Storing means for storing the transaction status of the user as data relating to a plurality of risk assessment items;
Further, the host computer includes a determination unit that determines whether the data stored in the storage unit has reached a predetermined risk level;
An automatic transaction system comprising instruction means for instructing the automatic transaction apparatus to use a predetermined usage restriction based on the determination by the determination means. In an automatic transaction system having an automatic transaction apparatus that performs a transaction by a user's operation using a portable storage medium, and a host computer connected to the automatic transaction apparatus via a communication line,
Storing means for storing the transaction status of the user as data relating to a plurality of risk assessment items;
Further, the host computer includes a determination unit that determines whether the data stored in the storage unit has reached a predetermined risk level;
Evaluation means for evaluating the risk level based on the determination by the determination means;
An automatic transaction system comprising instruction means for instructing the automatic transaction apparatus to use a predetermined usage restriction as a result of evaluation by the evaluation means. 3. The automatic transaction system according to claim 1, wherein the storage means is included in the host computer. 3. The automatic transaction system according to claim 1, wherein the storage means is included in the portable storage medium used by a user. 3. The automatic transaction system according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the risk evaluation item is a determination item for a financial institution to determine a transaction performed by a person other than a regular user as an illegal transaction or a risk transaction. An automatic transaction system characterized by that. 3. The automatic transaction system according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of risk evaluation items are a rate of increase / decrease in deposit balance per week, the number of transactions per week, a new transaction store in the past week, and a past week. The automatic transaction system is characterized in that it is any one of a usage time zone, a new transaction function in the past week, and an error history in the past week.   3. The automatic transaction system according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined risk level is a quality level indicating an unnaturalness, a danger, or an anomaly with respect to a user's behavior. Trading system.   3. The automatic transaction system according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined risk level has three stages of a quasi-natural behavior type, a boundary type, and an unnatural behavior type. 4. 3. The automatic transaction system according to claim 1, wherein the predetermined usage restriction is one or more of a withdrawal limit, a remittance stop, and a withdrawal stop. 3. The automatic transaction system according to claim 2, wherein the evaluation unit evaluates the risk level in consideration of weighting of the risk evaluation item. 11. The automatic transaction system according to claim 10, wherein the weighting is given in any one or more of a viewpoint of urgency, a viewpoint of monetary importance, a viewpoint of transaction risk, and a viewpoint of necessity of handling. Automatic transaction system characterized by In a server further connected to a host computer connected via a communication line with an automatic transaction apparatus that performs a transaction by a user's operation,
Storage means for storing the transaction status of the user as data relating to a plurality of risk assessment items;
A determination means for determining whether or not the data stored in the storage means has reached a predetermined risk level;
A server comprising: a transmission unit configured to transmit a predetermined usage restriction to the host computer based on the determination by the determination unit. In an automatic transaction apparatus that communicates with a host computer that is operated by a user and connected via a communication line,
Transmission means for transmitting the transaction status of the user via the communication line to storage means of a host computer that accumulates the transaction status of the user as data relating to a plurality of risk assessment items;
Characterized in that it has receiving means for receiving predetermined use restriction information from the host computer via a communication line based on a determination as to whether or not the data stored in the storage means has reached a predetermined risk level. Automatic transaction device. In an automatic transaction apparatus in which a user conducts a transaction by operating using a portable storage medium and communicates with a host computer connected via a communication line,
A writing / reading means for performing writing / reading on the storage means in the portable storage medium for storing the transaction status of the user as data relating to a plurality of risk assessment items;
Transmitting means for transmitting data relating to the plurality of risk assessment items obtained by the writing / reading means to the host computer via the communication line;
Characterized in that it has receiving means for receiving predetermined usage restriction information from the host computer via a communication line based on a determination as to whether a predetermined risk level has been reached for data relating to the plurality of risk evaluation items. Automatic transaction device.

Images