1 min read
Key Payment Fraud Red Flags for Banks & Fraud Teams: Explained
Payment fraud red flags are the warning signs and unusual patterns that help banks and financial institutions identify potentially fraudulent...
8 min read
Acoru : Aug 20, 2026, 1:45:43 PM
Instant transfers, real-time payments, and mobile-first banking have created more opportunities for fraudsters to exploit urgency, impersonation, and weak points in the payment journey.
For banks, it means they have to defend against both unauthorized transactions and authorized push payment (APP) fraud. Because the latter are approved by the customer, they are much more difficult to detect and prevent.
Banks have to detect high-risk recipient accounts, scam behavior, and mule activity early enough to intervene before the payment is completed.
Read on to learn more about the types of payment fraud and why moving to account-level intelligence is essential for detecting and preventing fraud schemes.
Payment fraud is an illegal attempt to steal money by manipulating or exploiting payment systems.
Fraudsters may target consumers, businesses, or financial institutions through bank transfers, payment cards, digital wallets, mobile payments, or real-time payment networks.
Regardless of the target or method, payment fraud has the same objective: moving money into accounts controlled by criminals.
Below are the most common types of payment fraud.
|
Type of payment fraud |
Description |
|
Card fraud |
Uses stolen card information, lost cards, or copied card data to make unauthorized purchases or withdrawals |
|
Identity fraud |
Uses stolen or fabricated personal information to create fake identities or access financial products |
|
Account takeover fraud |
Uses compromised credentials to gain control of legitimate accounts and perform unauthorized actions |
|
Business email compromise fraud |
Uses impersonation and social engineering to trick businesses into making fraudulent payments |
|
ACH and transfer fraud |
Uses manipulated instructions, compromised accounts, or mule accounts to redirect electronic transfers |
|
Instant payment fraud |
Uses fake payment instructions, impersonated platforms, or fraudulent links to redirect real-time payments |
|
Authorized push payment fraud |
Uses manipulation and deception to convince victims to authorize payments to criminal-controlled accounts |
Card fraud happens when criminals use stolen payment card information to make unauthorized purchases or withdraw funds.
The most common examples include:
Banks often identify card fraud by looking for unusual spending behavior, unexpected payment locations, fast purchase attempts, or suspicious merchant activity.
Identity fraud involves using stolen or fabricated personal information to impersonate someone and run fraudulent activities including:
Account takeover (ATO) is a type of identity theft in which criminals gain unauthorized access to a legitimate customer's banking account.
Attackers usually get login credentials through:
Once inside the account, fraudsters may change contact information, add new recipients, transfer funds, or lock the legitimate customer out.
Another reason why ATO represents a big challenge for banks is that it causes customer churn. According to Javelin Strategy & Research, in the USA in 2024, 42% of ATO victims closed the accounts after a fraud because of a lack of trust in the bank’s protection.
Business email compromise (BEC) is a type of fraud where fraudsters impersonate executives, suppliers, or trusted business partners and convince employees to authorize fraudulent payments.
Here are the most frequent types of BEC fraud:
Because these payments often appear legitimate, organizations may not discover the fraud until long after the money has been transferred.
ACH and transfer fraud happens when criminals manipulate electronic bank transfers to move money into accounts they control. This often involves compromised accounts, fraudulent payment instructions, or mule accounts that quickly receive and move stolen funds.
Because the payment itself may appear legitimate, traditional transaction monitoring can struggle to detect the fraud.
Banks need visibility into the receiving account, including whether:
Instant payment fraud involves real-time payment systems, where criminals exploit the speed of near-instant transfers to move money into accounts they control.
Unlike traditional payments, which may allow more time for review or intervention, instant payments are completed within seconds. As a consequence, they leave very little time to intervene once a transaction has begun.
Because customers often authorize these payments themselves, traditional fraud monitoring may not identify them as suspicious. In addition, traditional fraud controls that rely on analyzing transactions after they happen usually identify risks too late, especially when the payment itself appears consistent with normal customer behavior.
Unlike unauthorized payment fraud, authorized push payment (APP) fraud happens when customers willingly authorize a payment after being manipulated by criminals through impersonation, urgency, and emotional pressure.
Victims may believe they are:
By the time the victim realizes they have been deceived, the funds have often been transferred through multiple accounts.
While every type of payment fraud poses risks, APP fraud is particularly challenging because it exploits human trust rather than technical vulnerabilities, making it much harder to detect and prevent.
Below are the main reasons that make detection difficult.
Most fraud detection systems were designed to stop unauthorized transactions. They look for indicators such as:
However, in APP fraud, none of these warning signs may be present.
The customer logs in to their account, completes multifactor authentication, enters the recipient details, and approves the payment themselves. From a traditional transaction monitoring perspective, everything appears legitimate.
Criminals often spend days or even weeks manipulating victims before any money is transferred. This process involves building trust and creating urgency, so by the time the payment is made, the victim believes they are sending money to a trusted recipient.
Since traditional fraud detection platforms primarily focus on individual transactions, they can’t see the broader context, such as whether the recipient account has displayed suspicious behavior across previous interactions.
These hidden signals often provide a much stronger indication of fraud than the payment itself. Without additional context about that recipient, the bank may have little reason to intervene.
Account-level fraud detection gives banks a more complete view of risk, making it possible to intervene earlier, before money leaves the sender’s account.
It enables banks to:
Customer behavior often changes before fraud becomes visible through transaction analysis.
A customer may contact support to ask about increasing their credit limit or how quickly they can obtain a loan. They may move large portions of their savings into a current account, suddenly change their usual login patterns, or behave differently within the banking app.
On their own, these actions may appear completely legitimate and may not provide enough evidence for a bank to intervene.
However, connecting these signals into a timeline provides important context about what may be happening behind the scenes and gives the bank evidence to act.
Monitoring transaction patterns can reveal unusual activity such as new payment habits, unfamiliar recipients, or deviations from common customer behavior.
By establishing a baseline of normal customer activity, banks can more easily identify subtle changes that may indicate a scam is underway.
These behavioral signals often appear before traditional transaction-based alerts, giving fraud teams time to investigate or intervene.
Combined with other account intelligence signals, behavior monitoring can help banks distinguish legitimate customer activity from payments influenced by fraudsters.
Fraud rarely remains within a single financial institution. Criminal networks often move funds across multiple banks using numerous intermediary accounts.
When financial institutions securely share fraud intelligence, they can identify patterns and connections between accounts that appear unrelated, which would otherwise remain invisible within their own data.
This broader view increases the ability to detect mule accounts, emerging scam networks, and repeat fraudsters earlier.
AI helps banks identify complex fraud patterns that traditional rules may overlook. Instead of relying solely on predefined thresholds, AI models can recognize subtle behavior changes, new fraud techniques, and hidden connections between accounts.
These models can adapt as fraud tactics change, helping financial institutions identify new scam patterns without constantly rewriting detection rules.
AI can also reduce the time required to investigate fraud cases. Instead of requiring analysts to manually review large volumes of transactions, account activity, and related signals, AI can bring relevant evidence together and identify connections across accounts in minutes instead of days.
In addition, AI agents can work alongside fraud teams to assess alerts and improve decision accuracy.
Used alongside account intelligence and behavioral analytics, it enables more proactive fraud prevention while reducing unnecessary alerts for legitimate customers.
Acoru is an AI-native fraud prevention platform that combines account intelligence, predictive signals, and collaborative fraud insights to help financial institutions:
For APP fraud, moving to account intelligence is necessary because the fraudster’s real weakness is often not the payment itself but the account receiving it.
Acoru enables banks to improve APP fraud detection by:
Request a demo today to see how you can identify risks earlier and reduce losses and APP fraud reimbursements.
APP fraud is a type of payment fraud in which a victim is tricked into sending money to a criminal while believing the payment is legitimate.
It is hard to stop because the customer authorizes the transfer themselves, so the payment can look valid at the moment it is made, even though the request came through deception.
Account-level fraud detection is effective because it builds a fuller risk picture from signals across channels and data sources, not just the payment event at the moment it happens. This risk picture covers both the sender and the destination accounts, including those that sit outside your financial institution.
This helps banks spot mule accounts, suspicious account activity, and scam-linked activity earlier in the payment journey, which is especially important for APP fraud where the transaction may otherwise appear legitimate.
The most common types of payment fraud in banking include card fraud, account takeover fraud, identity fraud, and APP fraud.
1 min read
Payment fraud red flags are the warning signs and unusual patterns that help banks and financial institutions identify potentially fraudulent...
1 min read
Most fraud prevention systems fire when the money moves. By then, the trajectory that led to the transfer had been building for weeks. The customer...
1 min read
The same speed and convenience of digital and instant payments that benefit customers have also created new opportunities for fraudsters, which banks...