
A payment verification procedure to stop wire fraud
Most payment fraud is not a technical failure. It is a convincing request that skips a step. A written verification procedure, with callbacks to known numbers, dual approval and a hold on changed banking details, closes the gap.
Reviewed by the ITRS security team · Last updated
Where payment fraud gets in
The Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre collects reports of fraud and cybercrime from across Canada, and business payment fraud follows a few familiar patterns. Each one ends with an employee sending real money to an account the fraudster controls, usually because the request looked routine and urgent at the same time.
- Vendor impersonation: an email from a supplier, or a look-alike domain, announcing new banking details before the next invoice
- Compromised mailbox: an attacker inside a real vendor's or your own mailbox replies in an existing thread with altered instructions
- Executive impersonation: the 'CEO' or 'managing partner' asks for an urgent, confidential transfer, sometimes now using cloned voice or video
- Payroll diversion: an 'employee' asks HR to update direct-deposit details
- Closing and settlement fraud: altered payout instructions in real estate, legal or lending transactions
Callback verification
The core control is simple: any new payee, any change to payment details and any unusual request is confirmed by calling the requester on a number you already had, not one supplied in the request.
Write it precisely so it cannot be satisfied by a shortcut:
Use a known number
From the vendor master file, a signed contract or the vendor's official website, never from the email, invoice or signature block in the request.
Speak to a known person
Ideally someone you have dealt with before. Ask them to confirm the details read back to them, rather than reading them out yourself.
Record the call
Who called, whom they spoke to, the number used, date and time, and the result, attached to the payment record.
No reply-to-email confirmation
Replying 'please confirm' to the same email thread confirms nothing if the thread is compromised.
Dual approval and thresholds
Two people should be needed to release any payment above a threshold that fits your business, and every payment to a new or changed payee regardless of amount. In online banking, set up separate roles so one person creates a payment and another approves it, and make sure the approver sees the destination account, not just the amount.
Set thresholds based on what you could afford to lose, not on what is convenient. Review them yearly, and watch for payments split to stay just under the limit.
Change-of-banking-details process
| Step | Owner | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
Request received by any channel | Anyone | Forward to accounts payable; never act on it directly |
Callback to known number | Accounts payable | Call log entry |
Second-person review | Finance lead | Approval in the vendor master change record |
Hold period before first payment | Accounts payable | A short cooling-off period set by policy |
Confirmation to old contact details | Accounts payable | Notice sent to the vendor's previous contact |
Small test payment, if used | Accounts payable | Vendor confirms receipt by phone |
Exceptions under pressure
Fraudsters manufacture urgency: a deal closing today, a supplier threatening to stop shipments, a CEO who is 'in a meeting and can't talk'. The procedure has to hold precisely when someone senior asks to skip it.
Put it in writing, signed by leadership, that no one, including the owner, may instruct staff to bypass verification, and that staff who follow the procedure and delay a genuine payment will be backed. Give finance a short script: 'Our policy requires a callback before any change. I'll call you on the number we have on file.'
Payment control questions
No. Long-standing suppliers are exactly who fraudsters impersonate, because their invoices are expected. Most vendors appreciate the check once they understand why.
Where available, it is a helpful extra check, but it does not prove the request came from your vendor. Keep the callback.
Testing the control
Controls drift. Every few months, pick a sample of payee changes and check that each has a callback record and a second approval. Run a tabletop with finance on a business email compromise scenario. Include a fake change-of-details request in your phishing simulations for accounts payable.
On the technical side, reduce the number of convincing requests that reach finance at all: MFA on every mailbox, alerts for new forwarding rules, external-sender tagging, and DMARC enforcement so your own domain cannot be spoofed to your vendors. Microsoft's incident response playbooks for phishing and password spray describe how attackers get the mailbox access these frauds depend on.
We investigate payment fraud when it happens and help finance teams design controls that hold up.
Related reading.
- GuideWhat to do when a vendor asks to change their bank detailsA request to update a supplier's banking information is the single most common set-up for payment fraud. Verify it before any money moves.
- GuideWhat to do if you sent a payment to a fraudsterIf a wire, EFT or cheque went to an account controlled by a fraudster, the first hour matters most. Call your bank before you do anything else.
- GuideDeepfake voice and video fraud against businessesFraudsters can now clone an executive's voice from a few public clips and appear as familiar colleagues on a video call.
- ServiceBusiness email compromise responseSomeone got into a mailbox and a payment went to the wrong account, or nearly did.
- PracticeCyber Forensics & AssuranceIncident response, digital forensics, penetration testing and independent attestation.

Under attack right now?
Call before you reset passwords, wipe a laptop or pay anyone. A responder will help you contain the incident without destroying the evidence you will need later.
