MED 2.0: why tracing fraud beyond the first account changes the game for iGaming

Connect PSP says it sits in the infrastructure layer that orchestrates payments, compliance, and fraud prevention for critical environments. With its Sentinela and Advanced Transaction Tracking Module, fraud handling stops being a reactive cleanup job and becomes part of the operating architecture.

1. The new MED 2.0 version of Pix’s Mecanismo Especial de Devolução now follows disputed funds through the full chain of accounts, not just the first receiving account. In practice, the Banco Central no longer treats a fraudulent transfer as a one-hop problem: the money is traced account by account and institution by institution, as far as recovery is possible.
2. For high-volume operations, especially iGaming, that changes the compliance clock. The source text says responding within the deadline is no longer optional, because the technology used for tracing is what separates operators that can protect themselves from those that become just another fraud node in the chain.
3. Under the previous model, MED only reached the first recipient of the contested amount, which was not much help when fraud proceeds were split across dozens of mule accounts in seconds. The result, according to the source, was a recovery rate stuck in the single digits.
4. MED 2.0 pushes the process into the DICT, with graph-tracing support mapping the path taken by the funds from the root transaction and issuing Notificações de Infração to the PSPs involved in each link of the chain. Receiving institutions then have a deadline to review the case, block the balance, and return the funds in a sequential, automated process.
5. For the operator, the practical consequences are threefold: short and non-negotiable response windows, balance blocking once an infringement is accepted, and fraud tagging in the DICT for the accounts involved. That tag follows the operation’s reputation even when there is no repayment.

For gaming and betting operators, the issue is not abstract regulation. They process large volumes of Pix inflows, often from accounts they do not control, and each deposit can become the starting point for a later Notificação de Infração after the money has already moved through the business. That means two very unglamorous but very real risks: missing the deadline to respond and block, and getting recorded as a fraud outlet in a system that leaves a mark.