FRP Fraud Risk Detection - AI-Powered Analysis

What This Means: This FRP frequently amends original filings via credit notes, suggesting initial under-reporting that is later corrected. The pattern warrants review to understand if this is systematic.

What This Means: This FRP frequently amends original filings via credit notes, suggesting initial under-reporting that is later corrected. The pattern warrants review to understand if this is systematic.

What This Means: This FRP frequently amends original filings via credit notes, suggesting initial under-reporting that is later corrected. The pattern warrants review to understand if this is systematic.

What This Means: This FRP frequently amends original filings via credit notes, suggesting initial under-reporting that is later corrected. The pattern warrants review to understand if this is systematic.

What This Means: This FRP frequently amends original filings via credit notes, suggesting initial under-reporting that is later corrected. The pattern warrants review to understand if this is systematic.

What This Means: This FRP frequently amends original filings via credit notes, suggesting initial under-reporting that is later corrected. The pattern warrants review to understand if this is systematic.

What This Means: This FRP frequently amends original filings via credit notes, suggesting initial under-reporting that is later corrected. The pattern warrants review to understand if this is systematic.

What This Means: This FRP frequently amends original filings via credit notes, suggesting initial under-reporting that is later corrected. The pattern warrants review to understand if this is systematic.

What This Means: This FRP frequently amends original filings via credit notes, suggesting initial under-reporting that is later corrected. The pattern warrants review to understand if this is systematic.

What This Means: This FRP frequently amends original filings via credit notes, suggesting initial under-reporting that is later corrected. The pattern warrants review to understand if this is systematic.

What This Means: Refunds occur in a high proportion of filings. While refunds can be legitimate, consistent refund dominance may indicate systematic over-reporting followed by corrections.

What This Means: Refunds occur in a high proportion of filings. While refunds can be legitimate, consistent refund dominance may indicate systematic over-reporting followed by corrections.

What This Means: Refunds occur in a high proportion of filings. While refunds can be legitimate, consistent refund dominance may indicate systematic over-reporting followed by corrections.

What This Means: Refunds occur in a high proportion of filings. While refunds can be legitimate, consistent refund dominance may indicate systematic over-reporting followed by corrections.

What This Means: Refunds occur in a high proportion of filings. While refunds can be legitimate, consistent refund dominance may indicate systematic over-reporting followed by corrections.

What This Means: Refunds occur in a high proportion of filings. While refunds can be legitimate, consistent refund dominance may indicate systematic over-reporting followed by corrections.

What This Means: Refunds occur in a high proportion of filings. While refunds can be legitimate, consistent refund dominance may indicate systematic over-reporting followed by corrections.

What This Means: Refunds occur in a high proportion of filings. While refunds can be legitimate, consistent refund dominance may indicate systematic over-reporting followed by corrections.

What This Means: Refunds occur in a high proportion of filings. While refunds can be legitimate, consistent refund dominance may indicate systematic over-reporting followed by corrections.

What This Means: Refunds occur in a high proportion of filings. While refunds can be legitimate, consistent refund dominance may indicate systematic over-reporting followed by corrections.

What This Means: High filing frequency suggests active business operations, but low tax payable may not align with expected revenue. Pattern warrants review of business activity vs. tax liability.

What This Means: High filing frequency suggests active business operations, but low tax payable may not align with expected revenue. Pattern warrants review of business activity vs. tax liability.

What This Means: High filing frequency suggests active business operations, but low tax payable may not align with expected revenue. Pattern warrants review of business activity vs. tax liability.

What This Means: High filing frequency suggests active business operations, but low tax payable may not align with expected revenue. Pattern warrants review of business activity vs. tax liability.

What This Means: High filing frequency suggests active business operations, but low tax payable may not align with expected revenue. Pattern warrants review of business activity vs. tax liability.

What This Means: High filing frequency suggests active business operations, but low tax payable may not align with expected revenue. Pattern warrants review of business activity vs. tax liability.

What This Means: High filing frequency suggests active business operations, but low tax payable may not align with expected revenue. Pattern warrants review of business activity vs. tax liability.

What This Means: High filing frequency suggests active business operations, but low tax payable may not align with expected revenue. Pattern warrants review of business activity vs. tax liability.

What This Means: High filing frequency suggests active business operations, but low tax payable may not align with expected revenue. Pattern warrants review of business activity vs. tax liability.

What This Means: High filing frequency suggests active business operations, but low tax payable may not align with expected revenue. Pattern warrants review of business activity vs. tax liability.

What This Means: Penalties occur consistently across multiple years despite prior enforcement. Pattern suggests current enforcement approach may not be changing filing behavior.

What This Means: Penalties occur consistently across multiple years despite prior enforcement. Pattern suggests current enforcement approach may not be changing filing behavior.

What This Means: Penalties occur consistently across multiple years despite prior enforcement. Pattern suggests current enforcement approach may not be changing filing behavior.

What This Means: Penalties occur consistently across multiple years despite prior enforcement. Pattern suggests current enforcement approach may not be changing filing behavior.

What This Means: Penalties occur consistently across multiple years despite prior enforcement. Pattern suggests current enforcement approach may not be changing filing behavior.

What This Means: Penalties occur consistently across multiple years despite prior enforcement. Pattern suggests current enforcement approach may not be changing filing behavior.

What This Means: Penalties occur consistently across multiple years despite prior enforcement. Pattern suggests current enforcement approach may not be changing filing behavior.

What This Means: Penalties occur consistently across multiple years despite prior enforcement. Pattern suggests current enforcement approach may not be changing filing behavior.

What This Means: Penalties occur consistently across multiple years despite prior enforcement. Pattern suggests current enforcement approach may not be changing filing behavior.

What This Means: Penalties occur consistently across multiple years despite prior enforcement. Pattern suggests current enforcement approach may not be changing filing behavior.

What This Means: From 2020-2023 this FRP behaved consistently with median payable of RM 77,691. From 2024 onwards, the pattern changed abruptly to NIL payable in majority of filings.

What This Means: From 2020-2023 this FRP had consistent payable averaging RM 16,453. From 2024 onwards, 100% of filings show NIL payable—a complete behavioural shift.

What This Means: From 2020-2023 this FRP had significant payable (RM 240,846 median). From 2024 onwards, 86% of filings show NIL payable—a dramatic shift from established pattern.

What This Means: From 2020-2023 this FRP had consistent payable with median RM 11,986. From 2024 onwards, median dropped to NIL with significantly higher NIL filing rate.

What This Means: From 2020-2023 this FRP had payable in most filings (69% non-NIL). From 2024 onwards, 100% of filings are NIL—a complete behavioural reversal.

What This Means: From 2020-2023 this FRP had consistent payable averaging RM 87,761. From 2024 onwards, payable sharply reduced by 71% to RM 25,654 median.

What This Means: From 2020-2023 this FRP had payable in most filings (89% non-NIL). From 2024 onwards, 86% of filings are NIL—a dramatic behavioural shift.

What This Means: From 2020-2023 this FRP had consistent payable averaging RM 83,557. From 2024 onwards, payable sharply reduced by 71% to RM 23,981 median.

What This Means: From 2020-2023 this FRP had payable in most filings (75% non-NIL). From 2024 onwards, 86% of filings are NIL—a sharp reversal in filing behaviour.

What This Means: From 2020-2023 this FRP had consistent payable pattern. From 2024 onwards, payable reduced by 49% and NIL filings began appearing where none existed before.

What This Means: This FRP frequently submits after the due date (100% of filings), and those late submissions disproportionately result in NIL payable (100%). Lateness appears non-random when it consistently results in financial benefit.

What This Means: This FRP frequently submits after the due date (92% of filings), and those late submissions disproportionately result in NIL payable (82%). Pattern suggests potential systematic behaviour.

What This Means: This FRP frequently submits after the due date (70% of filings), and all late submissions result in NIL payable (100%). Pattern suggests potential systematic behaviour.

What This Means: This FRP frequently submits after the due date (64% of filings), and those late submissions disproportionately result in NIL payable (88%). Lateness appears non-random when it consistently results in financial benefit.

What This Means: This FRP frequently submits after the due date (64% of filings), and those late submissions disproportionately result in NIL payable (86%). Lateness appears non-random.

What This Means: This FRP submits after the due date in 52% of filings, and all late submissions result in NIL payable (100%). Strong correlation between lateness and financial benefit.

What This Means: This FRP submits after the due date in 43% of filings, and all late submissions result in NIL payable (100%). Strong correlation between lateness and NIL outcome.

What This Means: This FRP submits after the due date in 43% of filings, and all late submissions result in NIL payable (100%). Strong correlation between lateness and NIL outcome.

What This Means: When this FRP submits late (27% of filings), all those late submissions result in NIL payable (100%). Strong correlation between lateness and NIL outcome.

What This Means: This FRP submits after the due date in 39% of filings, and all late submissions result in NIL payable (100%). Strong correlation between lateness and NIL outcome.