Those look like Chaucer-era words from back before English spelling and grammar were formalised into single “agreed” versions of words.
Also, “frauded” on it’s own doesn’t appear there at all - so I’m not surprised that Apple Lookup didn’t return this entry. Obviously, defrauded does appear which indicates to me that it is the “most common way of saying it”.
But still, interesting to see the full detail!
Yes that common usage of
Don’t think he’d get a Monzo account tbf.
There’s an example from 1502 which is well into the period of standardisation and codification!
And this is where the problem lies - in a few posts above you allude to the “correct” version, but is there such a thing? If so, what period of time was the correct one? Is it 1502, or is it 2020? Does that make all words previously used in that context “wrong” and does it mean we should allow any changes to the language in the future?
That’s the broad approach of prescriptivists but it doesn’t hold water. Language is organic and changes to reflect the world we live in. I used to teach students to analyse language change along the lines of SPECT, social, political, (the) economy and technological.
Words, their meanings and their versions shift like the changing sands of time and it generally “just happens” through common usage rather than by an arbitrary set of rules.
Well if he did, then it’s likely he doesn’t anymore 
Following Monzos own guidance and documentation I would say it should be the most commonly used word and to remove ambiguity where possible.
It wouldn’t be trying to bring back uncommon words or coin new phrases.
Maybe start saying reteyned too. Sounds quite cool, I assume retained.
Love love love a grammar battle,
I don’t have as much expertise as you, which I freely admit @Dan5!
Perhaps the later example shows that the now-uncommon form was codified but then later fell out of use? I don’t know the exact history of the word, obviously.
I would just say that @phildawson’s post makes sense to me, and the most common version is basically what I meant when I alluded to a “correct” version (with the caveat that it must also be grammatically correct and dictionary-accepted).
I hope that makes sense.
Edit: I forget to say that, in answer to the question about time periods, I would say the “correct” version depends on the context and would be the most common (or at least a widely-used version) for the time that the text was written.
Oh I definitely agree, in principle, to the concept, without commenting on any specific words or usage 
I think we both agree, in principle, everything you have posted in the thread makes sense to me too.
I understand that you can’t really comment on specific words and then “speak for Monzo” definitively, as this sort of thing must go through an internal process of editing anyway so it would we wrong to circumvent that.
But I do appreciate your engagement with the community here (and not just on this issue either)!
One thing that is worrying me… we are nearly at 100 comments in this thread…
And still no poll by our resident Poll Master to settle the debate once and for all…
I agree with you that there is no official body that can say what is right or wrong in English, or with any language.
But that doesn’t mean there aren’t rules, it just means rules work by common understanding and practice instead of being decreed by some higher authorities. If I say:
Dop farr luggy sunatine
You don’t know what I’m talking about. And if I say:
I’m today to park going.
You understand me but it’s very jarring and doesn’t sound natural. It’s not an effective way of communicating, even if the intention is understandable. Sure, it’s a matter of what’s commonly used and what isn’t, but so that we don’t have to move into a lengthy explanation of how communally agreed rules work, we normally just shorthand to saying ‘this sentence is incorrect’.
The dictionary isn’t there to dictate what’s correct or incorrect. But lexicographers spend a lot of time analysing common language patterns for new words or new uses of words. So the fact they haven’t added ‘fraud’ as a verb in common usage is the best indication we have that’s it’s actually not commonly used like that.
I’ve never used fraud as a verb, I’m not sure I’ve heard anyone use it as a verb, and to me it sounds very unnatural. And it’s not in the dictionary either. So I’m going to stick with the statement that it’s incorrect.
Closing super briefly whilst I sort out a poll 
And… we’re back!
Poll on the first post… 
I agree but we should discuss in terms of standard and non-standard rather than right and wrong.
Language by its very nature means that words and uses start off as non-standard and as their usage increases they become standard overtime.
Frauded is being used increasingly - but that doesn’t mean that it’s current seen as standard English. Equally that doesn’t mean it can’t be used and this may just be an example of language change in action.
This exactly.
I spent many years being a spelling, grammar, and punctuation policeman (and I still like to get it ‘right’ in my own writing), but I long ago came to the conclusion that as long as the meaning is clear and unambiguous, I don’t really mind people getting it ‘wrong.’
Edit: I did bring up the subject of frauded in the fees thread, though. I’ve never denied hypocrisy.
My instinct is that this is financial services jargon that hasn’t (yet?) made it mainstream. I don’t object to a changing language, but would challenge banks and others to think outside of their bubble and to check whether it is as common as they think it is.
It grated me to see it in a Monzo blog, but wouldn’t have batted an eyelid if someone started a thread to say ‘I’ve been frauded, what should I do?’
Is it being used more frequently? Do you have any lexographic data for that or is this just conjecture?
I’m not sure that’s the case - I haven’t seen it formally used anywhere outside of Monzo and the Monzo app.
However using social media as a corpus it’s fairly commonly although most frequently used in the context of the US election at the moment.
The concept of “voter fraud” is often referred to by younger Americans as being “frauded”.