Over the past year, fraudsters have adopted AI more aggressively, expanding beyond email into voice and text impersonation. They are refining attacks that bypass the traditional red flags most teams still rely on. Yet many organizations are slow to retire high-risk payment methods and update their internal processes.

During the second companion webinar to the AFP 2025 Payments Fraud and Control Survey, underwritten by Truist, AFP gathered industry experts to weigh in on the critical question of why treasury teams aren’t moving faster to close the widening gap between fraud tactics and operational realities.

Fraud is more sophisticated than ever

One of the incontrovertible points from the discussion was that fraud today rarely looks as it did even two years ago. “The way fraud continues to unfold makes it a continued challenge that we all have to face,” said Chris Ward, Head of Enterprise Payments, Truist.

The telltale markers treasury teams were trained to spot — e.g., grammatical mistakes, odd formatting, questionable sender domains — aren’t reliable anymore. Fraudsters are using AI to mimic writing styles and generate professional correspondence.

“With the introduction of AI, fraudsters have the ability to bypass the identifiers we came to rely on,” said Steven Peterson, Executive Director of Treasury, Chick-fil-A, Inc. “They’re much more sophisticated in how they approach their victims.”

Imposter fraud is now the dominant threat

When it comes to business email compromise (BEC), the speakers emphasized that email is no longer the primary problem; impersonation is.

“BEC needs a rebrand,” said Andrew Deichler, Director, Enterprise Payments Practice, AFP. “It’s coming in over text messages; it could be a voice call with AI and deepfake — calling it imposter fraud is a smarter way to go as these scams continue to evolve.”

Fraudsters now use voice calls, text messages, messaging apps, spoofed numbers and, increasingly, deepfake audio to mimic executives and vendors. What used to be a questionable email is now a virtually foolproof, multichannel communication, designed to disarm even the most seasoned of practitioners.

“It’s really moved quickly from business email compromise to imposter fraud entering through multiple channels,” said Ward. “There are so many different ways to communicate. It’s quite serious. Talking through all of those imposter scenarios and making sure you have the right controls is critical. It should not be underestimated.”

Checks persist due to legacy processes and internal dependencies

Even though treasury teams understand the risks of using paper checks, their removal is far from simple because they are often embedded in workflows that cross multiple departments.

Checks are used to issue refunds, payroll exceptions, small-vendor payments, franchise operations and legal requirements. “There’s a lot of legacy built up around these check issuance capabilities,” said Ward. “They’re trying to figure out where’s the best place to start.”

Additionally, some teams are simply more comfortable with what they know. “I think some people feel more comfortable with the fraud-fighting tools of the check side than the electronic payments side,” said Peterson.

Digital migration is stalled by prioritization, alignment and partner readiness

If the check problem is structural, then the digital migration problem is operational. Many organizations could convert a significant percentage of their check volume immediately. So, why haven’t they?

Because digital migration is in competition with everything else treasury is expected to deliver or manage, such as real-time payments exploration, ERP or TMS upgrades, improvements to cash forecasting, staffing constraints and support for daily operations. “There are a lot of competing priorities,” said Peterson.

Compounding the issue, some vendors and partners are not set up to accept digital payments, forcing teams to continue issuing checks even when the desire to modernize is there. “You’re ready from your company perspective, but sometimes it just doesn’t match up,” said Peterson.

The speed of detection determines whether funds can be recovered

For irrevocable payments, such as wire transfers, even a small delay can eliminate the chance of recovery. Yet AFP’s survey found that 25% of organizations took a month or more to detect fraud.

“You need to detect it as soon as possible,” said Peterson, “because with a wire transfer, most likely, you’re not going to get those funds back.”

Having controls in place, such as early identification, positive pay or daily reconciliation, is an absolute must. “It’s not only about how you detect fraud, but also whether you have the right reconciliation routines and transaction inspection processes in place,” said Ward.

Culture and communication are critical defenses

Controls matter, but the panelists were adamant: The strongest defense isn’t a tool; it’s a culture. Treasury teams need to be in an environment where people feel safe asking questions and flagging concerns.

“Communication is key,” said Peterson. “We’re always communicating with each other, as well as AP and AR. I encourage my team to question the questionable. If there’s anything you feel like is a red flag, raise it up.”

Ward added that, just like your annual physical, you should do a fraud checkup every year. “It’s really just good risk hygiene to check all your policies, controls and procedures annually,” he said.

Interested in learning more? Download the AFP 2025 Payments Fraud and Control Survey, underwritten by Truist.