What Is ACH Fraud, and Why Should Compliance Teams Care in 2025?

The automated clearing house (ACH) network is a foundational component of the U.S. payments system. Simply put, it is the electronic network used for direct deposits, bill payments, certain business-to‐business transfers, and other automated entries between bank accounts. When criminals exploit this network, the phenomenon is known as ACH fraud. Although fraud has long existed in payments, the nature, speed and ubiquity of ACH fraud in 2025 mean that compliance teams cannot treat it as an isolated operational issue; rather it must be seen as a strategic compliance risk with ties into anti-money laundering (AML), sanctions, vendor risk, and reputational risk.

In this article we will explore what ACH fraud is, why it is particularly relevant today, review available data on ACH fraud trends in 2025, discuss regulator perspectives, and outline what compliance teams need to know — and do — to stay protected.

{{snippets-guide}}

Understanding ACH Fraud

ACH fraud typically involves unauthorised or manipulated entries through the ACH network. This might include a fraudster gaining access to a company’s ACH origination credentials and initiating transfers from the company’s account (unauthorised debit), or a fraudster manipulating a vendor relationship so that payments go to a bogus account (vendor payment fraud). Because the ACH system often processes large volumes of transactions and increasingly supports faster payments, the opportunities for fraud multiply.

In recent years, the evolution of digital banking, remote payments, business-email-compromise (BEC) schemes, account takeover (ATO) and the use of synthetic identities have all fed into the vulnerabilities of ACH. Fraudsters may impersonate vendors or suppliers, redirect payments to mule accounts, manipulate payment files, or exploit weak controls in the originator bank or process. Unlike traditional wire fraud, which is sometimes reversible or flagged earlier, ACH transactions often settle with less visibility, making recovery and detection more challenging.

The underlying risk is not simply the dollar amount lost; it is the erosion of controls, the blurring of origination and approval boundaries, and the possibility that the fraud is part of larger money-laundering or sanctions-evasion schemes. For compliance teams, ACH fraud should therefore be seen as both a payments-fraud risk and an AML/sanctions risk.

Why ACH Fraud Is So Relevant in 2025

There are several converging factors that make ACH fraud especially relevant this year. First, the volume of transactions routed via digital payment rails continues to rise. With increasing adoption of faster payment systems and cross-border flows, fraudsters exploit newer corridors where controls may be less mature.

Second, the regulatory and technology landscape is changing. For example, rule changes by NACHA (the U.S. ACH network administrator) have accelerated processing speeds and enabled same-day or near-real-time ACH entries. The faster the payments, the less time for manual review, which increases fraud risk. 

Third, fraud tactics are evolving. Business email compromise remains a major entry point. According to the survey data from Association for Financial Professionals (AFP) for 2024, around 50 % of organizations reported that ACH credits were targeted in BEC attacks. Even though wire transfers still receive heavy attention, the shift to ACH channels means that risk landscapes have broadened.

Fourth, compliance frameworks are under more scrutiny globally. Regulators expect firms to integrate fraud-risk, AML and sanction-screening controls across payment channels—including ACH. As payments become faster, real-time, cross-border and embedded, the visibility of suspicious flows diminishes, creating blind spots for compliance.

Finally, the financial and reputational costs are rising. A data provider reported that ACH fraud is now “exploding in 2025” and that organizations must invest in controls such as account verification, positive pay for ACH, dual-control procedures, and real-time monitoring. In other words, the threat is no longer theoretical—it is material and escalating.

What the Data Shows for 2025

While precise global numbers for ACH fraud can be difficult to isolate (because many fraud reports aggregate across payment types), recent data show clear upward trends and structural risk indicators. The AFP survey found that 79 % of organizations reported being victims of attempted or actual payments fraud in 2024. Specifically, 34 % reported experiencing ACH debit fraud and 19 % reported ACH credit fraud in 2024.

An industry analysis for 2025 highlights that ACH credits have become the most commonly targeted payment method in BEC fraud attempts among large organizations (47 % of large organizations reported ACH credit as a target). Another study pointed out that 67 % of all fraud is linked to just 7 % of payments made to newly added payees — underscoring how fraudsters exploit the “new beneficiary” vulnerability. Nice

Moreover, the NICE Actimize predictions warn that the increase in processing speed (making ACH settlement faster) reduces the time for human review and increases reliance on automated controls (NICE Systems). Although many reports focus on the UK or global payments in aggregate, the direction of the trend is clear: ACH fraud is rising, becoming more sophisticated and embedding itself within broader payments fraud and financial-crime frameworks.

For compliance teams this means that reliance on legacy controls built for slower, batch-based payments is increasingly inadequate. Real-time, adaptive monitoring, and integration with AML and sanctions systems are becoming mandatory rather than optional.

Regulatory and Industry Guidance

In the U.S., while the ACH network is governed by NACHA rules, regulatory oversight stems from bodies such as the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Reserve System. These bodies expect banks and originators to have robust controls for fraud and for suspicious transactions to be reported under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and the Anti-Money Laundering (AML) rules.

While there is no U.S. federal regulation uniquely specific to “ACH fraud” (as opposed to overall fraud or ACH compliance), there are rule enhancements in the payments industry which increase pressure. For example, ACH rules around same-day settlement shorten time-frames for return and reversal. The NACHA Operating Rules and Guidelines include obligations around risk management, originator identification, and vendor credentialing.

Internationally, payments regulators emphasise the need for transaction monitoring and fraud controls across all payment types. Reports such as those from the London Stock Exchange Group’s risk intelligence unit note that payments fraud is evolving and that firms must build holistic fraud and payments risk frameworks. LSEG

From a compliance standpoint, the connection with AML and sanctions is critical. Fraud that exploits ACH may also involve sanctioned entities, mule accounts, or proceeds of crime. The U.S. enforcement community—in documents such as the DOJ’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) advisories—highlights that financial institutions must treat payments fraud (including ACH) as part of their AML and sanctions programmes.

Industry guidance from fraud-prevention vendors and risk-intelligence firms likewise emphasises that compliance teams should integrate fraud and payments risk with AML/sanctions risk rather than address them separately. The DataVisor 2025 Fraud & AML Executive Report emphasises “the evolution of fraud + AML (FRAML)” and describes how payment channel fraud must be seen through a unified lens (Datavisor).

{{snippets-case}}

Key Compliance Considerations for ACH Fraud

For compliance teams operating in 2025, there are several critical dimensions to managing ACH fraud risk. First and foremost, teams must recognise that ACH fraud is not just a treasury or operations risk—it is a compliance risk.

Risk Assessment and Controls

Compliance programmes must include ACH payments within their risk assessment frameworks. This means evaluating the institution’s exposure to ACH origination, ACH credits and debits, vendor-payment flows, business accounts, and the use of third-party platforms. Weak controls around vendor onboarding, beneficiary account changes, and account takeover create vulnerabilities that fraudsters exploit.

The controls should include positive pay or ACH equivalent validation, dual-control authorisation for large or unusual transactions, vendor and payee verification, account change verification protocols, and transaction segmentation by amount, frequency, origin/destination and new payees.

Monitoring, Alerting and Analysis

Because ACH flows can settle quickly, compliance teams must use real-time or near‐real‐time monitoring. This includes profiling normal behaviour for accounts and payees, setting thresholds and parameters for new payees or unusually large transactions, and applying analytics to detect anomalies such as rapid changes in payment patterns, new payees added against history, or redirected flows to high-risk jurisdictions.

The use of machine learning, artificial intelligence and network-analysis tools is increasingly critical. For example, tools can flag when a payment is made to a newly added beneficiary and then immediately sweeps to multiple accounts, which is a known fraud pattern. The insight that “67 % of all fraud is linked to just 7 % of payments made to newly added payees” underscores the importance of monitoring new payee flows. 

Vendor and Third-Party Risk

Many ACH fraud schemes start with legitimate vendors or suppliers being impersonated or compromised. Compliance teams must ensure that vendor onboarding includes verification of the banking account, change notifications via independent verification (e.g., phone call to known contact), segregation of duties, and periodic review of vendor accounts. Where outbound ACH is significant, vendor management and payee change management become core to fraud control.

Integration with AML and Sanctions Infrastructure

ACH fraud can be a conduit for proceeds of crime, money laundering and sanctions evasion. Therefore, compliance teams must ensure that ACH origination channels are included in AML programme scopes, subject to transaction monitoring, suspicious-activity reporting (SAR) and sanctions screening (for counterparties, vendors, payees). Because fraudsters often route funds through mule accounts or shell entities via ACH, oversight must include beneficial ownership, linkage to high-risk jurisdictions and known fraud or sanctions lists.

Governance, Training and Culture

Fraud risk is only as strong as the controls and culture around it. Compliance teams should work with treasury, operations, fraud prevention, and IT to ensure that awareness is high, employees are trained to recognise social-engineering attacks (e.g., vendor impersonation, BEC), and incident-response plans exist. In 2025, fraud remains a human-driven activity leveraging technology, so human vigilance remains essential.

Data Quality and Beneficial Ownership

Because fraudsters often rely on synthetic identities, mule accounts and obscured ownership, compliance teams should emphasise account-verification, beneficial-ownership information, and payee-change controls. Regular cleansing of vendor and payee master-data, verifying routing/account numbers, and ensuring that changes to payee bank details are independently validated, are essential practices.

Incident Response and Recovery

When ACH fraud occurs, the speed of settlement means losses can be rapid. Compliance teams should maintain playbooks for responding to suspected fraud: freezing accounts, tracing funds, coordinating with banks and law-enforcement, filing SARs and partnering with payment network administrators (such as NACHA) for return/reversal rights. Having defined roles, escalation paths, and communication plans is critical.

Metrics and Reporting

Compliance functions should track key metrics: number of attempted ACH fraud incidents, value lost, recovery rate, time to detection, number of payee-changes reviewed, number of new payees flagged, and false-positive rates for alerts. These metrics help management, audit and regulators assess how effective controls are and where residual risk remains. The AFP survey noted that only 22 % of organizations were able to recover 75 % or more of the funds lost to payments fraud in 2024 — a drop from 41 % in 2023. That low recovery rate underscores how critical speed and preparedness are in the context of ACH fraud.

Bringing It All Together: Practical Steps for 2025

In practice, compliance teams should adopt a multi-layered strategy:

• Treat ACH origination and inbound/outbound flows as part of the compliance programme, not just operations.
  
  
• Expand vendor-payee master-data reviews, adding segmentation for new payees and high-risk jurisdictions.
  
  
• Implement real-time monitoring and analytics for ACH transactions, especially new payees, large amounts, changes in account details or suspicious routing.
  
  
• Integrate ACH transaction flows into existing AML and sanctions detection systems — ensure that ACH counterparties are screened for sanctions, PEPs, adverse media and beneficial-ownership transparency.
  
  
• Conduct regular scenario-based exercises (including BEC and vendor impersonation) to test internal controls and incident-response protocols.
  
  
• Ensure that internal policies reflect the speed and risk of modern ACH flows: faster processing means less time for manual review, so automated alerts and decision-engines must be robust.
  
  
• Maintain strong vendor-onboarding and change-control procedures: any change to payee bank account must involve independent verification (phone contact to a verified contact, out-of-band confirmation).
  
  
• Collaborate across functions — compliance, fraud prevention, treasury, payments operations, IT and legal must share data and intelligence. The fraud landscape for ACH is cross-functional.
  
  
• Educate employees about common fraud tactics: BEC, vendor impersonation, account takeover, phishing, new-payee manipulation. Human awareness remains a key defence.
  
  
• Monitor regulatory/industry guidance and adapt: payments rules and fraud-controls are evolving. For instance, changes in NACHA rules or real-time/instant-payment frameworks may introduce new vulnerabilities and obligations.

Why Compliance Teams Must Care

Compliance teams cannot afford to exclude ACH fraud from their remit for several reasons. First, the speed and volume of ACH transactions mean that losses can accumulate quickly and detection delays can increase exposure. Second, ACH fraud often feeds into broader financial-crime networks — money laundering, sanctions evasion, illicit flows — which fall squarely into the compliance domain. If a fraudster uses ACH to move illicit funds tied to a sanctioned individual or to a high-risk vendor, the institution may face not just fraud losses but regulatory sanctions, AML violations and reputational damage.

Third, regulatory expectations are rising. The convergence of fraud, AML and sanctions means that blindness to ACH-channel risk can lead to compliance failures. Regulators increasingly expect firms to have unified risk frameworks rather than siloed fraud or payments teams. The 2025 DataVisor report described the need for Fraud + AML integration — “FRAML” — and urged firms to break down silos. Fourth, fraud mitigation efforts tend to cost far less than remediation, recovery and regulator enforcement. The earlier a fraud scheme is detected—especially in a high-velocity channel like ACH—the better the outcomes.

Finally, from a strategic standpoint, ACH fraud can erode trust, damage the institution’s brand, and impact customer relationships. For institutions offering payment services (including fintechs), being seen as vulnerable to ACH fraud can deter clients, increase insurance costs, and invite regulatory scrutiny. In short, what might appear as an “operations issue” is in fact a compliance challenge with broad risk-management implications.

Looking Forward: Emerging Trends in ACH Fraud

As we look ahead, several emerging trends are worth noting. One is the growing use of real-time payments and instant-settlement rails. As financial systems transition to faster and more continuous payments (in the U.S. and internationally), the vulnerabilities increase because manual review windows shrink. Fraudsters adapt rapidly to exploit these windows.

Another trend is the rise of synthetic identities, mule-networks and cross-border ACH-type fraud. Criminals are increasingly using layered structures to obscure origin and destination of funds. Studies such as the 2025 State of Fraud Report by Synectics noted a 25 % surge in identity fraud reports and a 36 % spike in address impersonation. These identity-fraud trends tie directly into payment-fraud flows.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning are being deployed both by fraudsters and by defenders. Fraudsters leverage deepfakes, account-takeover bots and social engineering, while compliance and fraud teams deploy AI-driven anomaly detection, network-analysis tools and behavioural analytics. The fraud-defence arms-race is intensifying.

Finally, the regulatory environment is evolving. Increased focus on third-party risk, vendor payments, payment fraud reporting obligations and cross-border cooperation means that ACH-fraud controls will become part of the standard compliance audit universe. Institutions that fail to anticipate this will find themselves reacting rather than preparing.

Conclusion

In 2025 the compliance imperative around ACH fraud is unmistakable. The network that underpins so much of the electronic payment infrastructure is increasingly targeted by sophisticated fraud actors. Because ACH flows are fast, voluminous and often less visible than wire transfers, the risk is elevated. For compliance teams this presents a clear mandate: treat ACH fraud as part of the compliance risk framework, integrate it with AML/sanctions and payments risk, deploy real-time analytics and controls, monitor vendor and payee flows carefully, and ensure governance and training are aligned.

In essence, ACH fraud is not simply an operations- or treasury-issue—it is a compliance issue that demands strategy, oversight and resources. For institutions that rise to the challenge, ACH payments can remain safe and reliable; for those that don’t, the cost of inaction is high—financial loss, regulatory enforcement and reputational damage.

sanctions.io is a highly reliable and cost-effective solution for real-time screening. AI-powered and with an enterprise-grade API with 99.99% uptime are reasons why customers globally trust us with their compliance efforts and sanctions screening needs.

‍

To learn more about how our sanctions, PEP, and criminal watchlist screening service can support your organisation's compliance program: Book a free Discovery Call.

‍

We also encourage you to take advantage of our free 7-day trial to get started with your sanctions and AML screening (no credit card is required).

‍