Payment Scams and Fraud in 2026: How to Prevent Losses and Strengthen Technical Evidence Through Accounting Expertise
Financial fraud is no longer a “peripheral” risk — it has moved to the center of corporate governance. The number of attempts continues to grow, methods are becoming increasingly convincing, and when a diversion occurs, the impact goes beyond cash flow: it affects supplier relationships, internal credibility, and may escalate into shareholder disputes, liability claims, and litigation.
In Brazil, market data reinforces this scenario. The Serasa Experian Fraud Attempt Indicator recorded 6,937,832 attempts in the first half of 2025, an increase of 29.5% compared to the same period in the previous year. On the consumer side, Febraban highlighted among the most frequently reported scams the WhatsApp scam, fake sales, and fake call center/fake employee schemes.
For companies, the critical point is simple: payment fraud exploits weaknesses in processes and validation controls. And when the matter turns into a dispute, what determines the outcome is not “what it seemed,” but what is demonstrable.
In this article, we explain the main fraud vectors, the controls that most effectively reduce risk, and how accounting/forensic expertise helps transform warning signs into evidence — both for internal remediation and technical defense.
Why Payment Fraud Remains High in 2026
Fraud increases when three factors combine:
- Operational urgency (urgent payments, intense routines, multiple approvals processed automatically)
- Weak processes (lack of segregation, absence of independent validation, inconsistent rules)
- Social engineering (persuasion, urgency, authority, convincing communication)
The result is an environment in which criminals do not need to “hack complex systems” to cause losses. They only need to manipulate the most vulnerable step — the human decision within the payment flow.
Most Common Corporate Payment Fraud Schemes: Where the Money Leaks
Below are the most recurring patterns in B2B payment fraud cases:
1) Supplier Bank Detail Change (Account Manipulation Fraud)
The fraudster impersonates a supplier (or intercepts communications) and requests a change in bank account details. If the registration is altered without robust validation, the “correct” payment is sent to the wrong account.
Typical sign: recent change in banking details + urgency + request outside usual communication channels.
2) Fake Call Center / Fake Employee (Social Engineering)
One of the most frequently reported approaches in the banking ecosystem, with variations that induce the victim to “fix” a non-existent problem.
In corporate environments, it may appear as a “bank alert,” “ERP alert,” or “account block notice,” always pushing someone toward immediate action.
3) Invoice/Bill with Altered Payment Instructions (Document Fraud)
Seemingly legitimate invoices arrive with modified payment information (beneficiary, account number, QR code, etc.). If validation is superficial, the payment proceeds.
4) Duplicate or Out-of-Policy Payments Due to Process Failures
Not every loss originates from an external attack. Processes without proper audit trails, frequent exceptions, and approvals without clear criteria create opportunities for errors, favoritism, and even internal diversion.
What Effective Controls Have in Common
Most companies attempt to “solve” fraud with a single rule. In practice, what works is eliminating single points of failure. Some particularly effective controls include:
Segregation of Duties (The Basic That Prevents the Worst)
The person who registers a supplier should not be the same person who approves payments. The person who executes payments should not be the same person who performs reconciliation. This structure reduces opportunity and facilitates detection.
Independent Validation for Sensitive Changes
Changes in banking details require “dual confirmation”:
- Validation through an alternative channel (e.g., calling the number already on file, not the one provided in the email)
- Approval by a second responsible party
- Documentation of the validation evidence
Clear Exception Rules and Audit Trail
Fraud thrives where “everything becomes an exception.” Establishing policies, documenting justifications, and maintaining audit trails (who approved, when, and why) significantly increases defensibility.
When Fraud Occurs: Why the Initial Response Determines the Outcome
In payment fraud cases, the first 24–72 hours are critical. Beyond attempting recovery, there is a second dimension: evidence preservation.
In the case of Pix, for example, the Brazilian Central Bank maintains the Special Return Mechanism (MED) to support fund recovery in fraud cases and continuously improves identification and return frameworks to discourage fraud.
Regardless of the payment method, companies must act methodically.
Practical Checklist (Initial Response):
- Freeze the related flow (without deleting emails, logs, or history)
- Preserve evidence: emails, attachments, headers, contextual screenshots, ERP/bank logs
- Map the timeline (who received, who approved, who executed, which control steps failed)
- Isolate the control breakdown (registration? approval? channel? reconciliation?)
- Record decisions and actions taken (for governance and potential disputes)
Without this, the company faces two risks: failing to recover funds and being unable to technically demonstrate what occurred.
The Role of Accounting Expertise: From Suspicion to Defensible Evidence
Accounting/forensic expertise operates on three fronts that change the outcome:
1) Technical Reconstruction of the Event (The “How” and the “When”)
It is not enough to say “a fraud occurred.” It is necessary to demonstrate:
- Which process stage was exploited
- What evidence proves the alteration (registration, document, instruction)
- Which approvals occurred and based on what information
- Which audit trail confirms execution of the payment
2) Quantification of Impact (The “How Much”)
This includes amounts paid, related payments, contractual effects, and indirect impacts (penalties, supply disruptions, remediation costs) — all based on technical criteria.
3) Causation and Responsibility (The “Why It Happened”)
In disputes, the discussion often shifts to control failures, fault, diligence, and governance. A well-prepared technical report organizes facts, reduces noise, and supports positions with clarity.
How to Reduce Risk in 2026: A Practical Roadmap for Companies
To raise anti-fraud maturity without overburdening operations:
- Map payment flows and decision points
- Classify payments by risk (amount, urgency, new supplier, bank detail change)
- Implement independent validation for sensitive changes
- Strengthen segregation and approval limits
- Standardize audit trails and justifications
- Create an incident playbook (response + evidence preservation)
- Conduct periodic testing (sampling, reconciliations, exception analysis)
This framework reduces losses and, when something occurs, prevents the second damage: being left without consistent technical evidence.
How DFEXA Can Support Your Organization in 2026
Payment fraud requires two things: well-designed controls and the ability to produce technical evidence when questioned.
DFEXA operates at the intersection of accounting, evidence, and disputes, supporting companies and law firms in reconstructing events, quantifying impacts, and strengthening processes to reduce risk and exposure.
If your organization wants to review payment flows, investigate incidents, or structure a defensible technical approach, contact DFEXA and bring greater clarity and security to your decision-making.
Contact us to learn more.
Read Also
Uma resposta