April 2025
Invoice-to-Pay Automation Tracker® Series

Rising Risk: Confronting Modern AP Fraud Threats

AP fraud attempts are escalating in volume and sophistication, with manual detection proving no match for rising AI-generated scams and cyberthreats. Could AI-powered anti-fraud tools equip AP teams to fight fire with fire — and win?

01

Fraud is a constant battle for AP departments, but GenAI has introduced techniques like deepfakes and impersonations, making fraud even more dangerous.

02

Despite the advanced cybersecurity technologies now available, most AP departments still rely on manual anti-fraud procedures, making for ineffective fraud detection and prevention.

03

As fraudsters embrace advanced technologies, AP departments must also deploy new methods. Automation and AI are key weapons for fighting new forms of cybercrime.

Get Unlimited Access
Complete the form below for free, unlimited access to all our Data Studies, Trackers, and MonitorEdge reports.

Thank you for registering. Please confirm your email to view all our Trackers.

    yesSubscribe to our daily newsletter, PYMNTS Today.

    By completing this form, you agree to receive marketing communications from PYMNTS and to the sharing of your information with our sponsor, if applicable, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and Terms and Conditions.

    Fraud continues to pose a major challenge to accounts payable (AP) teams. Research shows that 68% of organizations encountered at least one fraud attempt in 2024, with AP fraud taking a variety of forms, including phishing attacks, account takeovers and invoice fraud. Moreover, fraudsters are rapidly growing more sophisticated as they gain access to fraud weapons fashioned with the help of artificial intelligence (AI). In recent years, AI-generated deepfakes and impersonations have become top threats, with nearly two-thirds of companies saying that generative AI (GenAI) is making fraud more dangerous than ever before.

    Against these attacks, the manual tools and defenses of traditional AP, though still wielded by most firms, are proving woefully inadequate. When it comes to fraud, however, AI is a double-edged sword. As bad actors increasingly leverage the technology for fraudulent aims, AP departments are fighting back with AI-driven tools of their own. AI-powered fraud detection and automated systems reduce human error, enhance security, ensure regulatory compliance and provide better visibility and control. These systems are making it more possible than ever to meet — and defeat — fraud wherever and in whatever form it arises.

    A Growing Menace: AI-Generated Fraud

    Fraud is a constant battle for AP departments, but GenAI has introduced techniques like deepfakes and impersonations, making fraud even more dangerous.

    GenAI has revolutionized fraud techniques — and risk.

    New research from Trustpair reveals a dramatic rise in cyberfraud in the United States last year, with 90% of firms targeted — up from 79% in 2023. The report attributes this rise to fraudsters’ increasing adoption of widely available AI technology to stage elaborate social engineering attacks. Tools like ChatGPT and others enable fraudsters to generate and send “deepfakes,” or convincing impersonations of vendors or payment executives via email, voice messages or even video calls. Business email compromise (BEC) emerged as the top fraud technique, reported by 63% of companies — a 103% increase year over year.

    90%

    of U.S. firms were targeted by cyberfraud in 2024.

    A Basware study confirmed that 62% of CFOs see GenAI as a primary contributor to the rise in AP fraud. Another 34% said that keeping up with these evolving techniques is the top challenge AP departments face, especially for firms relying on manual fraud prevention processes.

    As a direct result, fraud’s financial impact reached unprecedented levels last year.

    The Trustpair research found that of the U.S. companies targeted by fraud in 2024, 86% lost money. Nearly half (47%) lost more than $10 million. This represents a 136% increase in financial loss due to fraud for U.S. companies between 2023 and 2024. This spike owes itself to AI as well, as automation of fraud vectors makes it possible for fraudsters to move more money faster than ever before.

    While 90% of U.S. executives said they had confidence in their AP teams’ abilities to detect fraud attacks, the rising number of successful attempts indicates this confidence may not be warranted. One important reason for the failure of fraud detection, for example, is the continued heavy reliance on manual methods for this process.

    The Inadequacies of Manual Fraud Detection

    Despite the advanced cybersecurity technologies now available, most AP departments still rely on manual anti-fraud procedures, making for ineffective fraud detection and prevention.

    Most AP departments still rely on manual methods for fraud detection.

    67%

    of AP teams still rely on manual prevention methods to fight fraud.

    With fraud still growing, we can only surmise that many companies’ fraud-fighting efforts are failing. In fact, Trustpair research indicates that 69% of companies continue to use manual methods for account validation, with only 26% having adopted fraud prevention software. Similarly, Basware reports that 67% of AP departments rely on manual audits and reviews, while just 31% use automated fraud detection tools.

    Experts note that while manual fraud reviews and audits are useful for uncovering suspicious findings, they leave significant gaps during which fraudulent activity can go unnoticed, especially as transaction volumes surge and fraud tactics grow more advanced.

    Human error is the most common source of payment fraud.

    Manual processes, in fact, turn out to be the number-one factor in fraud, and the bigger the business, the worse it gets. Trustmi reports that more than one-fifth of companies are especially susceptible to payment fraud simply due to their high monthly invoice-processing volume. This is because a high volume of manual processing contributes heavily to human error — the largest single source of payment fraud, at 50%.

    The sheer scale and complexity of financial transactions within large organizations make it nearly impossible for human reviewers to detect fraud in a timely manner or avoid slip-ups and oversights. Complicated tasks like invoice matching, approval tracking and identifying duplicate payments become increasingly difficult to manage accurately. Without real-time monitoring in place, unusual spending patterns or fraudulent activity can continue unchecked for weeks or even months, potentially leading to severe financial losses.

    Fighting Fire With Fire: AI-Driven Anti-Fraud Strategies

    As fraudsters embrace advanced technologies, AP departments must also deploy new methods. Automation and AI are key weapons for fighting new forms of cybercrime.

    AP automation can significantly improve security.

    AP automation not only reduces human errors like duplicate payments but also can incorporate advanced security features such as encryption, multifactor authentication (MFA) and continuous monitoring of access logs to guard against data breaches and fraudulent activities. Automation also supports regulatory compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS), the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and anti-money laundering (AML) requirements, minimizing legal and financial exposure. In addition, automation provides better transparency and control, which is vital for identifying and stopping unauthorized actions.

    5%

    of organizations have completely automated their AP systems.

    Full automation of payment processes remains limited, however, with only 5% of organizations having completely automated their AP systems. Sixty-nine percent have adopted partial automation, though, a key step in fraud prevention. This growing trend reflects a shift toward digital transformation in financial operations, driven by the need for greater efficiency, accuracy and security in managing payments.

    AI agents have proven effective at detecting fraud and human error.

    AI-powered fraud detection systems can spot invoice anomalies, duplicate invoices and data entry errors that humans frequently miss. One example of AI anti-fraud integration is Routable’s incorporation of an AI agent into its AP automation platform. Initially, the platform’s optical character recognition (OCR) system scans invoices to create bills that are either automatically matched to a purchase order or predictively coded based on machine learning (ML) and historical data. The AI agent then scans for anomalies and errors and, if it finds anything questionable, alerts AP teams — thus stopping fraud before it happens.

    “As fraudsters get more creative, it’s become impossible for humans to keep up,” Routable CEO and Co-Founder Omri Mor said in a press release. “[This solution] uses the power of AI to detect and prevent both invoice fraud and human error — giving AP teams superhuman visibility to protect the business.”

    Shifting From Manual to Automatic in Fraud Prevention

    Manual fraud prevention methods are becoming increasingly insufficient for AP departments due to their reliance on human oversight and susceptibility to error. Manual screening often fails to catch sophisticated fraud schemes such as those produced by GenAI because it is difficult for individuals to spot subtle anomalies across large volumes of transactions. Additionally, manual processes lack real-time monitoring and struggle to enforce consistent controls, both of which create opportunities for fraudsters to exploit weaknesses in the AP system.

    Automation and AI-driven solutions offer a far more effective approach to fraud detection and prevention in accounts payable. Automated systems centralize all AP activities, enforce segregation of duties, and provide real-time monitoring, making it much harder for unauthorized transactions to slip through. AI can analyze vast amounts of transaction data, identify patterns and flag anomalies that would be difficult for humans to detect manually. These technologies also create comprehensive audit trails, streamline approval workflows and reduce the risk of human error. By leveraging automation and AI, AP departments can gain enhanced visibility, faster detection and stronger controls, making their accounting processes more secure against fraud.

    Jonathan Beckham

    The pace and sophistication of today’s fraud threats — especially those powered by AI — should be a wake-up call for every finance team. Relying on manual processes is no longer just inefficient — it’s dangerous. The time to modernize your AP operations is now, before your organization becomes the next cautionary tale.”

    Jonathan Beckham
    Chief Product and Technology Officer, Edenred Pay

    About

    Edenred Pay, an Edenred Company, is a leader in invoice-to-pay automation and has extensive experience in the property management industry. Our integrated platform automates, optimizes and monetizes the entire invoice-to-pay cycle, from invoice receipt through payment reconciliation. And we connect buyers with suppliers, ERPs, banks, FinTechs and payment rails to improve efficiency, enhance visibility, mitigate the risk of payment fraud and deliver value to the enterprise. Visit www.edenredpay.com to learn more.

    PYMNTS Intelligence is a leading global data and analytics platform that uses proprietary data and methods to provide actionable insights on what’s now and what’s next in payments, commerce and the digital economy. Its team of data scientists include leading economists, econometricians, survey experts, financial analysts and marketing scientists with deep experience in the application of data to the issues that define the future of the digital transformation of the global economy. This multilingual team has conducted original data collection and analysis in more than three dozen global markets for some of the world’s leading publicly traded and privately held firms.

    The PYMNTS Intelligence team that produced this Tracker:
    John Gaffney, Chief Content Officer
    Andrew Rathkopf, Senior Writer
    Alexandra Redmond, Senior Content Editor and Writer
    Joe Ehrbar, Content Editor
    Augusto Solari, Senior Research Analyst

    We are interested in your feedback on this report. If you have questions or comments, or if you would like to subscribe to this report, please email us at feedback@pymnts.com.

    Disclaimer

    The Invoice-to-Pay Automation Tracker® Series may be updated periodically. While reasonable efforts are made to keep the content accurate and up to date, PYMNTS MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, REGARDING THE CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS, ADEQUACY, OR RELIABILITY OF OR THE USE OF OR RESULTS THAT MAY BE GENERATED FROM THE USE OF THE INFORMATION OR THAT THE CONTENT WILL SATISFY YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR EXPECTATIONS. THE CONTENT IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND ON AN “AS AVAILABLE” BASIS. YOU EXPRESSLY AGREE THAT YOUR USE OF THE CONTENT IS AT YOUR SOLE RISK. PYMNTS SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY FOR ANY INTERRUPTIONS IN THE CONTENT THAT IS PROVIDED AND DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENT, INCLUDING THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NONINFRINGEMENT AND TITLE. SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW THE EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN WARRANTIES, AND, IN SUCH CASES, THE STATED EXCLUSIONS DO NOT APPLY. PYMNTS RESERVES THE RIGHT AND SHOULD NOT BE LIABLE SHOULD IT EXERCISE ITS RIGHT TO MODIFY, INTERRUPT, OR DISCONTINUE THE AVAILABILITY OF THE CONTENT OR ANY COMPONENT OF IT WITH OR WITHOUT NOTICE.
    PYMNTS SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, AND, IN PARTICULAR, SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES, OR DAMAGES FOR LOST PROFITS, LOSS OF REVENUE, OR LOSS OF USE, ARISING OUT OF OR RELATED TO THE CONTENT, WHETHER SUCH DAMAGES ARISE IN CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, TORT, UNDER STATUTE, IN EQUITY, AT LAW, OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF PYMNTS HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.
    SOME JURISDICTIONS DO NOT ALLOW FOR THE LIMITATION OR EXCLUSION OF LIABILITY FOR INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, AND IN SUCH CASES SOME OF THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS DO NOT APPLY. THE ABOVE DISCLAIMERS AND LIMITATIONS ARE PROVIDED BY PYMNTS AND ITS PARENTS, AFFILIATED AND RELATED COMPANIES, CONTRACTORS, AND SPONSORS, AND EACH OF ITS RESPECTIVE DIRECTORS, OFFICERS, MEMBERS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, CONTENT COMPONENT PROVIDERS, LICENSORS, AND ADVISERS.
    Components of the content original to and the compilation produced by PYMNTS is the property of PYMNTS and cannot be reproduced without its prior written permission.
    The Invoice-to-Pay Automation Tracker® Series is a registered trademark of What’s Next Media & Analytics, LLC (“PYMNTS”).