Trustpair raises the bar on U.S. bank account validation as fraud, regulation and ERP integration converge
This article is based on an interview with Trustpair CEO Baptiste Collot.
Vendor-payment fraud is rapidly moving up the enterprise risk agenda. What was once treated as an operational control issue is now colliding with stricter regulation, AI-driven attack methods and growing executive liability. Against that backdrop, Trustpair’s December 9 announcement that it now offers the deepest U.S. bank account validation coverage in the market — alongside SAP certification and $1 million in fraud liability protection — reads less like a routine product update and more like a response to a shifting compliance baseline.
Trustpair CEO Baptiste Collot explained to us what “deepest coverage” means in practice, why many enterprises remain underprepared for upcoming Nacha 2026 rules, and how fraud prevention is moving upstream — from payment execution to data integrity across the entire procure-to-pay (P2P) lifecycle.
Moving beyond “does this account exist?”
For many finance teams, bank account validation still means checking whether a routing number or account format looks correct. According to Collot, that approach fundamentally misses the point — and leaves a gap that fraudsters are increasingly exploiting.
“When finance teams validate bank accounts today, most tools only confirm that an account number is formatted correctly or exists in a database. That validates the account, but not who owns it, which is exactly what fraudsters exploit in business email compromise (BEC) and vendor impersonation attacks.”
Trustpair’s approach centres on ownership validation, rather than surface-level checks. The platform cross-references vendor identity information against authoritative banking data sources in more than 190 countries, verifying three elements simultaneously:
-
that the vendor exists and is legitimate,
-
that the bank account is valid and active, and
-
critically, the correlation between the two.
This correlation is assessed in real time, embedded directly into ERP and procurement systems where vendor master data already resides. When mismatches occur — for example, a U.S.-registered vendor submitting a bank account located in Asia — the platform flags the risk before the data is approved for payment.
“In cases that aren’t as simple to define, Trustpair activates additional verification and smart case management methods such as micro-payment validation or callback verification to resolve the status.”
Behind this real-time validation sits infrastructure built over years, combining deep banking data relationships with refined algorithms designed to deliver accuracy finance teams can rely on without slowing down operations.
Nacha 2026: a U.S. rule change with global implications
Trustpair’s expanded U.S. coverage comes as enterprises face a significant regulatory deadline that may still be unfamiliar to some European readers. Nacha governs the ACH (Automated Clearing House) payment network in the United States — the rail used for high-volume transactions such as payroll, vendor payments and account-to-account transfers.
In March 2026, new Nacha rules will come into force requiring companies to implement risk-based monitoring processes to identify unauthorized ACH entries and payments authorized under false pretenses. The intent is to move organisations away from reactive controls toward demonstrable, preventative monitoring across the full payment lifecycle.
Crucially, this is not only a U.S. issue. European companies with U.S. subsidiaries, shared service centres or American suppliers routinely use ACH. In those cases, Nacha operating rules apply regardless of where corporate headquarters are located. Vendor onboarding or master data changes may be handled in Europe, but if payments flow through the U.S. ACH network, appropriate controls must be in place.
Against that backdrop, Collot says awareness is growing — but readiness is lagging.
“In a recent webinar our team co-hosted with Nacha and Kyriba, we surveyed 80 treasury and finance professionals about their readiness for Nacha 2026. The results showed that 58% have heard about the rules but haven’t prepared yet, 27% have prepared, and 15% hadn’t heard about the requirements at all.”
That leaves 73% of surveyed finance teams with work still to do before the March 2026 deadline. The rules extend monitoring requirements across the entire vendor payment lifecycle — from onboarding and bank detail changes to detecting BEC schemes before payments are executed.
Manual controls are unlikely to meet that standard.
“Manual processes will not meet the monitoring standards set by Nacha, and according to Trustpair’s 2025 Annual Fraud Report, 69% of organizations still rely on manual callbacks or periodic spot checks.”
A data integrity problem, not a payment control problem
One of the most persistent misconceptions around Nacha compliance, Collot says, is the belief that the issue can be solved at the point of payment.
“The biggest misconception is that this is only a payment execution problem, when it’s actually a data management problem across the entire P2P process.”
If fraudulent banking details are introduced into an ERP weeks before a payment is made, additional approvals at the end of the process may do little to stop fraud.
“The monitoring requirements apply across the entire vendor relationship, not just at the moment you send a payment.”
Automated account validation closes this gap by verifying ownership in real time during onboarding and continuously monitoring for unauthorized changes throughout the vendor lifecycle. Because it is embedded directly in ERPs, issues are identified before payments are even queued.
Why legacy validation tools fall short
In the U.S. — and increasingly in multinational environments — Collot sees two dominant legacy approaches, neither of which delivers sufficient protection against modern fraud.
“Free online validators check routing number formats or IBAN structures but only verify that the data looks correct, not whether accounts actually belong to the vendors claiming them.”
Manual verification, while still widespread, is also becoming more vulnerable as fraud tactics evolve.
“Manual verification processes are similarly inadequate, particularly as AI-driven fraud tactics have increased by 118% year-over-year, making phone callbacks and email confirmations increasingly exploitable.”
Trustpair’s differentiation lies in both data depth and methodology. The platform combines more than 40 authoritative banking data sources with proprietary fraud intelligence derived from a network of 15 million validated vendor–bank account pairs.
“Our platform delivers instant, automated evaluations for 90% of validations with zero fraud across our entire client base.”
More complex cases trigger additional investigation, combining multiple risk signals with human expertise to resolve scenarios that data alone cannot.
Where AI adds value — and where it doesn’t
AI is often positioned as a cure-all for fraud prevention. Collot is explicit about its limits.
“AI is powerful only when paired with practical, reliable validation systems. The foundation of fraud prevention isn’t pattern detection — it’s real-time verification of vendor banking information against authoritative data sources.”
Where AI does add value is in handling scale and sophistication.
“The most effective approach applies AI to high-risk scenarios: scanning documents for forgeries, analyzing complex patterns and flagging anomalies that require human review.”
Why SAP certification changes deployment dynamics
Trustpair’s SAP certification reflects a broader shift in how fraud prevention is deployed inside large enterprises.
“SAP certification enables fraud prevention to be embedded directly into the workflows finance teams use every day, eliminating the friction and gaps of standalone tools.”
When validation is native to ERPs such as SAP and Oracle, or procurement platforms like Coupa and Ivalua, it becomes part of standard operating procedures rather than an external control layer.
“Teams verify vendor banking information within their existing processes for onboarding, master data changes and payment execution.”
Certification also accelerates enterprise adoption by addressing IT and security concerns upfront.
“It shifts the conversation from lengthy evaluation to execution, allowing leadership to move decisively while maintaining enterprise governance standards.”
Fraud is scaling faster than enterprise controls
The most concerning trend, Collot says, is not a single fraud type, but the way AI is amplifying all of them.
“Fraudsters are using AI to execute more complex BEC, invoice fraud, vendor impersonation and payment redirection, creating perfect forgeries that don’t trigger traditional red flags.”
These attacks span every stage of the P2P process — overwhelming manual verification methods.
“Manual verification cannot keep up. Automated account validation provides continuous protection across the entire vendor lifecycle.”
Regulation is closing the gap
Beyond Nacha, regulatory scrutiny is intensifying as fraud losses mount.
“SOX compliance remains a critical pressure point, with a shift from static documentation to continuous data verification and stricter executive accountability.”
Executives can face personal liability when inadequate internal controls lead to fraud. At the same time, the SEC has clarified that third-party vendor incidents carry the same disclosure obligations as internal breaches.
“Your vendor relationships are now part of your compliance framework, not separate from it.”
From optional control to core infrastructure
Trustpair’s December announcement reflects a broader recalibration in enterprise finance. Bank account validation is no longer a back-office check; it is becoming core infrastructure — embedded in ERPs, scrutinized by regulators and increasingly tied to executive accountability.
As fraud scales, regulation tightens and ERP ecosystems consolidate, the distinction between data quality, compliance and security continues to blur. In that environment, ownership-based bank account validation is no longer optional. It is becoming a prerequisite for operating at scale — not only for U.S. companies, but also for European enterprises with U.S. operations and ACH payment flows.