EBAday 2025: Strategising for instant payments and financial crime
The afternoon sessions in the main stream focused on strategising for instant payments and financial crime.
0
The first panel, 'Implementing Instant Payments: Strategies and Challenges', was moderated by Rita Camporeale, European Payments Council, and featured the following speakers: Anne-Fleur Felissent, Société Générale; Arantza Yague, HSBC; Craig Ramsey, ACI Worldwide; and Katja Heyder, EBA Clearing.
Camporeale began by outlining the Instant Payments Regulation and the urgency it imposes on European organisations as we have already passed the first deadline. The new version of the SEPA Instant Credit Transfer (SCT Inst) scheme will come into force on 5 October 2025, along with the Verification of Payee (VoP) scheme, meaning financial organisations have a full schedule in the upcoming five months. So how have organisations approached implementation?
Felissent outlined three steps with which Société Générale approached their own implementations of various transformation projects: First, the design of the offer and addressing the customer journey, meaning the app, banking tools, and end to end processes. Second comes the technical integration, ensuring the real-time checks and fraud filtering, as well as the interfacing and connection of the APIs. Lastly, testing.
Yague highlighted the difference between retail and corporate that she's observed. 'Firstly, the pricing is going to make corporates more keen to make use of instant payments. Equally, the fact that there is no €100,000 cap is going to allow them to make treasury payments of any amount, but the corporate journey is very different to that of the consumer. Crucially, it's going to be more of a file journey.'
Ramsey highlighted his perspective on industry adoption and readiness as a technical service provider. 'By 2028, we're expecting 13% of all payments in Europe to be instant payments. It's not just about preparing for the IPR, it's about truly understanding what's going to change in the business as we move forward in terms of actual readiness. I'm going to go out on a limb here: I don't think most banks have implemented a solution for IPR that will still be around in three years' time. I think many have put sticking plasters over their systems in order to be compliant.'
Heyder of EBA Clearing gave insight into what has happened since the first IRP deadline, including the ability to receive instant credit transfers among others, has passed in January of this year. 'You can see the increase accelerating, and you can see the first impact of the IPR. However, the SCT Inst is still growing itself, so I don't think we can really talk about a migration. Individual banks are on their way, but it's not yet an industry migration.'
An open-ended poll question revealed a mind-map of the audience's most prominent challenges of implementing instant payments. Liquidity, fraud prevention, VoP, and fund recovery emerged as the biggest struggles.
Felissent commented: 'I would have also chosen liquidity as one of the main challenges, especially when the cap on instant payments will be removed. Today, banks do not have 24/7 access to their liquidity in central banks, so there is the issue to source this liquidity. In addition, the account dedicated to instant payments is not remunerated,' adding an extra layer of complexity for treasurers when it comes to optimisation.
The other large issue that PSPs are facing is fraud. Ramsey emphasised that the rise in fraud is not because of instant payments per se, but because of the nature of fraud in itself. 'We see fraud focus on instant payments because it's a new thing. Whenever a new scheme has been launched, suddenly there's fraudulent activity there. A lot of people say you need to educate the populace, but that's not going to help. The populace always thinks its educated right up until the point they realise they've become a victim of fraud.'
And while VoP is one measure to help with fraud prevention, it will not solve the whole fraud puzzle. 'We're seeing that fraud in SCT Inst is nine times higher than in SCT,' Heyder commented. 'The [VoP] deadline is the first challenge, because October is just around the corner. But VoP in itself will not stop fraud. Looking at the data, 10% of fraudulent transfers would not pass VoP, but on the other hand, 50% of fraudulent transactions would pass VoP. The challenge banks will face is how to keep the good friction.
The question of fraud prevention strategies was then picked up by the next panel.
Financial crime and fraud in payments
As financial crime evolves, so must payments security. Moderated by Deepa Sinha, BAFT, the panel titled 'Financial Crime and Fraud in Payments' featured Damien Dugauquier, iPiD; Evert Vandenbussche, KBC Global Services; Monika Jacob-Schnitzius, Deutsche Bank; and Olivier Jolyon, EBA Clearing.
Jacob-Schnitzius began with a short summary of how financial crime has evolved over the last five years. What we have been experiencing, is 'a fundamental change in which crime, including financial crime, is committed. Financial crime is being shaped by global instability, market uncertainty, digitisation, and emerging technology. Digital platforms and technology are facilitating criminal systems. You can even say that a shadow industry has developed over the years, with professional fraudsters developing methods to steal data and sell it. The fact that a term like 'fraud as a service' exists speaks for itself.'
Dugauquier elaborated: 'I live in Sinapore, which is where people have lost the most amount of money to scams over the past few years. We're talking about, on average, $4000 per citizen, per year—which is the equivalent of a monthly salary. It really is very prevalent in life. It didn't used to be like that, so what changed? For one, Covid has removed the fear of spending money online, which fraudsters are exploiting. But mainly, the business case for scammers is too good. Scammers aren't based in Singapore, they have built scam centres, which are also linked to other types of crime, such as kidnapping and human trafficking.'
Vandenbussche highlighted the complexity of generative AI as deepfakes are becoming increasingly harder to identify. One of the means of effectively working against this is 'working together, making use of services like FPAD, to share data and intelligence. We have to go beyond the boundaries of the transactions that we see taking place in the scope of our functions.'
Jolyon emphasised the necessity of building 'AI models that will help detect fraud and patters very early in the game. That's what we're doing with FPAD, detect patterns and feed information to banks that can then use it in their own systems to detect fraud. Technology will play a key part in orchestrating all that information, and then as a next step will be sharing the information.'
Yet the panelists highlighted regulatory hurdles when it comes to effective data sharing—namely the balance between fraud prevention and data privacy. Dugauquier commented: 'We often like to blame the banks for everything, but it's not fair that banks are caught between data privacy and then also becoming more liable for fraud. If banks should protect their customers, we then also need to let them exchange more data to make this possible.'
Speaking on the topic of liability, the conversation turned toward the changing liability for authorised push payment (APP) fraud. 'APP fraud payments are fundamentally based on social engineering, which is why it's so difficult to catch,' highlighted Vandenbussche. 'On a European level, I understand we want to make banks more liable, and I do think they have a role to play in that. On the other side, a lot of these scams are going through social media, so there is a lot of other industries that should also take measures to prevent this scale of scams. As a PSP you cannot handle that [alone].'
Summarising what's next, the panellists agreed that the future of identifying fraud lies in technology and industry collaboration. Jacob-Schnitzius commented: 'Fighting financial crime and fraud is no longer a competitive advantage. It must be a collaborative effort amongst banks, industry, and authorities.'
Dugauquier aptly finalised: 'Fraud is a little bit like a bottle of ketchup. If you squeeze somewhere, it goes somewhere else.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
37 minutes ago
- Telegraph
It's no wonder that the middle classes are fleeing Rachel Reeves's anti-wealth island
A brain drain is coming. We need to talk about emigration. Yes, you read that right, emigration – not just immigration. You heard the warnings during the Brexit wars – business and investors will leave for Paris, Frankfurt, Milan (and the Earth will stop spinning...) unless we remain in the customs union – and back then it was largely a load of hot air. But hear me out. This time, it's actually happening. Entrepreneurs and businesspeople are fleeing in their droves. In the past year alone, more than 10,000 millionaires have left the UK. Only China saw more high net-worth individuals leave. European countries are now stealing our lunch, with Italy and Portugal styling themselves as destinations for investor flight with attractive low-tax regimes. It wasn't Brexit that did it, but an economically illiterate tax regime determined to squeeze the juice dry. The best-paid 1 per cent already paid about a third of all income tax collected: those with the broadest shoulders were – and still are – bearing the greatest burden. But the Chancellor viewed successful investors and risk-taking entrepreneurs as criminals to punish, rather than assets to court. The non-dom tax changes may have polled well in focus groups, but they've backfired – and the public will now pay the price. Who is going to fund increases in defence, healthcare and transport spending? Yet again, it will fall to the middle classes to bridge the gap left. The Chancellor's ineptitude means further tax rises on working people in the autumn are now inevitable. The social contract with the middle class hasn't simply frayed – it's been shredded. They have been disproportionately targeted to fund a record tax burden while their quality of life has remained largely stagnant. They're paying more than ever to get less than ever in return. The public services they use are crumbling, the streets they walk feel less safe, and the town centres they visit are hollowed out by petty crime and boarded-up shopfronts. In France, discontent leads to riots; in Britain, it seems to dissipate into despair. The very real risk now is that Brits vote with their feet and simply pack up and leave en masse. A recent poll showed that nearly a quarter of UK adults are considering moving abroad in the next five years. These are highly skilled professionals who are the bedrock of any country: 48 per cent of those in the IT industry are considering emigrating, as are 30 per cent of those in the healthcare sector. And it's not just white-collar workers, either – when I speak to tradesmen, they think they would have far better prospects in countries such as Australia and Canada. This is no longer an issue of investor flight, but a full-on brain drain. In the 1970s, a high-tax and anti-business environment led to Britain experiencing a net loss of 500,000 people. Half a century later, history could well repeat itself. Even my generation, now pushing into our 40s, who didn't feel like we had it particularly good entering the jobs market in the 2000s, and with the massive house-price boom of that period, had it so much better. When I speak at universities, I am struck by how many are contemplating opportunities abroad. And who can blame them? Young graduates today pay more than ever to live in tiny bedrooms in shared flats. The prospect of homeownership – or starting a family – has never been more distant. Unlike previously, the alternatives to the UK are increasingly appealing. Their money can go further elsewhere, and they can live in more prosperous countries with a better quality of life. In 2007, the average Brit was richer than the average American, Australian, Austrian, Belgian, Canadian and German, to name just a few. Now, they have all overtaken us. And it's not just them. Finland, the UAE, Hong Kong and Israel have all sailed past us when it comes to GDP per capita. A failed policy consensus of the past 20 years has driven this country into decline – and now the consequences are upon us. We won't return to being a country of net emigration anytime soon. Quite the opposite: Starmer's immigration White Paper was a recipe for more mass legal and illegal migration. That means hundreds of thousands more migrants who, over their lifetime, will take out more then they put in – many of whom are from culturally divergent countries. Meanwhile, net contributors are pushed towards the exit. On average, a millionaire leaves the country every 45 minutes, while an illegal migrant enters the country every 15 minutes. It's the most brain-dead migration policy imaginable. I don't just fear for the raw economic consequences. If middle-class flight takes off, the foot will slam on the accelerator driving the dizzying pace of change. Brits who have grown up here and are imbued with our history, heritage, culture, customs and traditions can't simply be swapped like-for-like. Nations, like all good things, take an age to create but are easily destroyed. Many Brits can sense that the country they love is slipping away: at first gradually, then suddenly. I understand why people consider leaving the UK, although I could never, ever imagine it myself. I too despair sometimes, but I care too much to just shrug my shoulders and resign myself to defeat. We have a fight on our hands to turn this country around. But safe streets, cohesive communities, cheap energy, functioning public services, higher wages and a startup culture are never unobtainable. For all our problems, this is a great country – and I'm convinced we can be greater still.
The Guardian
37 minutes ago
- The Guardian
UK ministers delay AI regulation amid plans for more ‘comprehensive' bill
Proposals to regulate artificial intelligence have been delayed by at least a year as UK ministers plan a bumper bill to regulate the technology and its use of copyrighted material. Peter Kyle, the technology secretary, intends to introduce a 'comprehensive' AI bill in the next parliamentary session to address concerns about issues including safety and copyright. This will not be ready before the next king's speech, and is likely to trigger concerns about delays to regulating the technology. The date for the next king's speech has not been set but several sources said it could take place in May 2026. Labour had originally planned to introduce a short, narrowly-drafted AI bill within months of entering office that would have been focused on large language models, such as ChatGPT. The legislation would have required companies to hand over their models for testing by the UK's AI Security Institute. It was intended to address concerns that AI models could become so advanced that they posed a risk to humanity. This bill was delayed, with ministers choosing to wait and align with Donald Trump's administration in the US because of concerns that any regulation might weaken the UK's attractiveness to AI companies. Ministers now want to include copyright rules for AI companies as part of the AI bill. 'We feel we can use that vehicle to find a solution on copyright,' a government source said. 'We've been having meetings with both creators and tech people and there are interesting ideas on moving forward. That work will begin in earnest once the data bill passes.' The government is already locked in a standoff with the House of Lords over copyright rules in a separate data bill. It would allow AI companies to train their models using copyrighted material unless the rights holder opts out. It has caused a fierce backlash from the creative sector, with artists including Elton John, Paul McCartney and Kate Bush throwing their weight behind a campaign to oppose the changes. This week, peers backed an amendment to the data bill that would require AI companies to disclose if they were using copyrighted material to train their models, in an attempt to enforce current copyright law. Ministers have refused to back down, however, even though Kyle has expressed regret about the way the government has gone about the changes. The government insists the data bill is not the right vehicle for the copyright issue and has promised to publish an economic impact assessment and series of technical reports on copyright and AI issues. Beeban Kidron, the film director and crossbench peer who has been campaigning on behalf of the creative sector, said on Friday that ministers 'have shafted the creative industries, and they have proved willing to decimate the UK's second-biggest industrial sector'. Kyle told the Commons last month that AI and copyright should be dealt with as part of a separate 'comprehensive' bill. Most of the UK public (88%) believe the government should have the power to stop the use of an AI product if it is deemed to pose a serious risk, according to a survey published by the Ada Lovelace Institute and the Alan Turing Institute in March. More than 75% said the government or regulators should oversee AI safety rather than private companies alone.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
TUC increases pressure on Reeves to introduce wealth taxes
The TUC is increasing pressure on the government to introduce wealth taxes amid expectations of spending cuts, with a poll revealing that 54% of the public supports taxes on big corporations and wealthy individuals. TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak urged the government to sustain funding for public services, criticising the current system where the wealthy don't contribute their fair share. Angela Rayner has pressed Rachel Reeves to consider wealth taxes instead of departmental cuts, amidst internal government disagreements over the upcoming spending review. The TUC has criticised the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR), suggesting its forecasts may negatively impact spending plans and calling for a review of the OBR's role to allow greater investment flexibility. A TUC poll indicates widespread frustration with the amount of tax paid by the wealthiest, with significant support for wealth taxes, windfall taxes on banks, and raising capital gains tax, including among Tory to Labour switchers and those considering switching from Labour to Reform.
