Possibly, but you could also decide that there simply isn't enough signal to draw a conclusion. We don't know if time zones are accounted for properly. We don't know if this fraction represents a significant number of users - for example, the number of fraudulent users could be the least at 3AM, but if the decrease in users overall is greater, then the percentage increases. The data is misrepresented.

Hi there, I worked on retrieving and distilling this dataset at Sift Science. To address your concerns: Yes, time zones are accounted properly. And yes, the number of data points is significant.

As I've said earlier, you can see in the users count that fraudulent users are indeed the lowest at night (which makes sense, since fraudsters sleep as well). However, we are looking at the "fraud rate" (#fraud / all users in a given hour). I'm not sure what you even mean by "misrepresent" the data. The data speaks for itself.

Or they simply live on the other side of the world

If you read the labels for the graph, it says "local time" of the user / fraudster. If we didn't take into account the local time of the user, the data would not be very interesting to look at (mostly uniform) since we have users from all over the globe.