When Financial Technology Becomes a Tool of Coercive Control

SAFECHAIN™ · Digital Safeguarding

When Financial Technology Becomes a Tool of Coercive Control

By Samantha Avril-Andreassen, LLB (Hons), LLM, LPC, FRSA
Founder, SAFECHAIN™

Technology has transformed how we manage money.

Banking apps, digital wallets, instant payments, budgeting platforms and shared financial accounts have made everyday financial management faster and more convenient.

For most people, these innovations represent progress.

For survivors of domestic abuse, however, the same technology can become another mechanism of coercive control.

Financial abuse has long been recognised as a form of domestic abuse. What is changing is the speed, reach and sophistication with which technology can now be used to exercise that control.

Financial Control Has Gone Digital

Economic abuse rarely begins with a banking application.

It begins with power.

Technology simply provides new ways to exercise it.

An abusive partner may:

• monitor spending through shared banking access;

• demand screenshots of account balances;

• insist on shared passwords or security codes;

• remove financial privacy through connected budgeting apps;

• transfer money without genuine consent;

• monitor purchases in real time;

• use payment notifications to track someone's movements;

• restrict access to digital banking altogether.

Each action may appear minor when viewed in isolation.

Together, they create an environment where financial independence becomes increasingly difficult.

The Hidden Safeguarding Risk

Many organisations still treat these situations as customer-service issues rather than safeguarding concerns.

A request to remove someone from a joint account.

Repeated password resets.

Unusual account access.

Pressure to change contact details.

Multiple failed identity checks.

These may all be indicators of technology-enabled coercive control.

Without appropriate training, they risk being treated as isolated administrative problems instead of part of a wider safeguarding pattern.

When Systems See Transactions Instead of Risk

Financial institutions are exceptionally good at identifying fraud.

They are becoming increasingly sophisticated at detecting money laundering.

Many can identify suspicious transactions within seconds.

Yet coercive control often remains invisible because the system is looking for financial crime rather than patterns of abuse.

The question should not simply be:

"Was this transaction authorised?"

It should also be:

"Was this decision made freely?"

That distinction matters.

Consent obtained through intimidation, fear or coercion is fundamentally different from genuine financial autonomy.

Institutional Fragmentation™

Financial abuse rarely exists on its own.

A survivor may simultaneously be engaging with:

• their bank;

• housing services;

• the police;

• social care;

• healthcare professionals;

• family courts;

• domestic abuse services.

Each organisation may hold one piece of information.

No single organisation may recognise the complete picture.

This is Institutional Fragmentation™ in practice.

Risk becomes divided across organisational boundaries, allowing coercive control to continue despite repeated disclosures.

Questions Financial Institutions Should Be Asking

Every financial organisation should consider:

• Do our safeguarding policies explicitly recognise technology-enabled economic abuse?

• Can customers safely remove a former partner's digital access?

• Are staff trained to recognise coercive control rather than only fraud?

• Can customers discreetly report concerns without alerting the person controlling them?

• Do our systems distinguish between joint financial management and financial coercion?

• Is safeguarding embedded into digital product design?

Beyond Compliance

Protecting customers requires more than regulatory compliance.

It requires understanding how coercive control adapts alongside technology.

As financial services become increasingly digital, safeguarding must become equally sophisticated.

Banks, fintech providers and payment platforms have an opportunity not only to prevent financial crime, but also to identify patterns of abuse before they escalate.

The SAFECHAIN™ Perspective

SAFECHAIN™ views digital financial abuse as a governance challenge rather than simply an individual safeguarding issue.

Effective protection depends upon organisations recognising patterns across systems, sharing appropriate information, designing survivor-centred services and ensuring that operational practice reflects the realities of coercive control.

Financial technology should empower independence.

It should never become another instrument of abuse.

This article reflects SAFECHAIN™'s analysis of emerging safeguarding risks associated with technology-enabled economic abuse. It is intended to support professional discussion and does not constitute legal advice.

SAFECHAIN™
Building safeguarding systems that recognise patterns—not just incidents.

Copyright

© 2026 Samantha Avril-Andreassen. All Rights Reserved.

Published by SAFECHAIN™

This publication is protected by copyright. No part of this article may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted, distributed, or translated in any form or by any means without the prior written permission of the copyright holder, except for brief quotations used for academic, journalistic, educational, or review purposes with appropriate attribution.

SAFECHAIN™, Institutional Fragmentation™, Participation Integrity™, Disclosure Integrity™, Jurisdictional Integrity™, and all associated methodologies, frameworks, models, standards and publications are proprietary intellectual property of Samantha Avril-Andreassen.

This article is provided for professional education and discussion and does not constitute legal, financial or regulatory advice.