The vendor name is familiar. The email looks like the last dozen they sent. This time, they ask you to update banking details before the next payment.
It sounds straightforward. But before anyone makes the change, how does your team confirm that the request actually came from the vendor?
The Yooz 2026 Payment Fraud Readiness Survey suggests that familiarity can lead people to skip that check. In a survey conducted through Pollfish among 750 U.S. finance, accounting, and accounts payable professionals, 49% said they had let an unusual payment request move forward without verification, or almost did, because it came from a trusted person or familiar email address.
For AP teams, that’s a reason to examine what happens between recognizing the sender and approving the request. A familiar name can make a payment feel safe before anyone has confirmed the details.
AP teams build relationships with the people they work with regularly. They know which vendors follow up on invoices, which managers approve payments quickly, and who can help resolve a discrepancy. Those relationships help keep work moving.
The trouble starts when familiarity becomes the reason to skip verification.
Take the vendor banking change. Replying to the email might seem like a reasonable way to confirm the request. But if someone else controls that email account, the reply goes straight back to them. Calling the vendor using a number already on file gives the team a separate way to verify the request before changing payment details.
Internal requests deserve the same attention. An email that appears to come from a senior leader can create pressure to act quickly, particularly when it includes an urgent deadline. Employees need to know that the usual checks still apply and that leadership supports them in taking those steps.
Making verification a standard part of the process takes some of that pressure off the individual. They can follow an established procedure without deciding whether to question a particular person.
A procedure can look clear on paper and still be difficult to follow when invoices are piling up or the usual approver is away.
In the Yooz survey, 54% of respondents said workload pressures at least sometimes make it harder to follow every fraud-prevention step. That makes it worth examining whether employees can realistically complete the required checks during a busy payment run.
See the findings on workload and verification.
Imagine an AP specialist receiving a banking change shortly before payments are scheduled. The vendor’s usual contact isn’t answering, and a manager wants the payment released that afternoon.
At that point, the employee needs more guidance than “verify the request.” The procedure should explain:
Discussing these situations in advance helps teams avoid making those decisions under pressure. It also gives managers a chance to fill in missing instructions and make clear that employees have support when a payment needs further review.
Technology can help teams spot activity that deserves a closer look. In the survey, teams actively using AI reported identifying fraud attempts more often than non-users: 63% compared with 30%. While the survey cannot show that AI alone explains the difference, the finding suggests a useful role for AI in helping teams recognize suspicious activity.
For finance leaders evaluating tools, it helps to follow a flagged transaction through the entire review process. Ask a provider to demonstrate what happens when the system identifies a possible duplicate invoice, including:
These details help determine whether an alert leads to a useful review. If someone asks to rush the payment, the employee should also know how to handle that request without skipping the required checks.
Once those steps are defined, training gives employees a chance to practice them. 37% of survey respondents identified employee fraud awareness training as something that would increase their confidence in fraud prevention.
A useful training exercise can start with the same situations employees encounter in their inbox: a vendor changing payment instructions, a leader requesting an urgent payment, or an invoice that doesn’t match the expected purchase.
Walk through how the team should respond. Show employees where to find verified contact details, whom to ask for help, and how to document what they checked. Give them room to raise the awkward questions, too: What if the requester keeps pushing? What if nobody is available to approve the next step?
Working through those questions together makes the procedure easier to follow when a real request arrives.
To put these ideas into practice, choose one scenario and review it with the people who handle it every day. A vendor banking change is a useful starting point:
Ask the team to show you how each step works. Any hesitation or missing information gives you a specific place to improve, whether that means updating contact records, clarifying responsibilities, or adjusting the approval process.
A familiar name can help a request feel credible. A clear, consistent verification process helps your team decide whether it is safe to act on it.
Read the Yooz 2026 Payment Fraud Readiness Survey Report for more findings on payment fraud, team readiness, and the controls finance professionals want to strengthen.