Verification of Payee (VoP) is a check that matches a payee's name to the account details at the receiving bank before a payment is sent. Under the EU Instant Payments Regulation, VoP has applied to eurozone payment providers since October 2025. For corporate treasurers, the result so far is avoidance. In the 2026 survey by the European Association of Corporate Treasurers (EACT) and VDT, 57.2% of 174 respondents have opted out of VoP for bulk payments, and only 6.4% have fully implemented it.
The survey describes a gap between asking the question and using the answer. Of the respondents, 53.0% can send a VoP request, 57.8% cannot process the response automatically in their ERP and 56.0% have no defined process for a mismatch. Payment fraud prevention depends on that second half, because a check only reduces authorised push payment (APP) fraud, where a payer is deceived into paying a criminal's account, when its result changes what happens to the payment.
Sending the request is the easier half
The receiving bank replies with a match, a close match, a no match or a message that verification was not possible. Most respondents can already do the first half of that exchange. 74.7% connect through EBICS, while API connections, the channel best suited to real-time requests, account for 6.3%. Receiving is harder. Only 22.9% can receive a full response and 40.4% cannot receive one at all. After go-live, 49.1% rate bank support as inadequate or absent, and 69.4% say the lack of uniform standards across channels is a full or partial problem.
Payment fraud prevention stalls where the response has nowhere to go
Only 2.4% have VoP feedback fully integrated into their ERP, 18.1% have partial integration and 57.8% have none. The most cited obstacle is the lack of automated evaluation against ERP and master data (57.5%), followed by the risk of interrupting payroll and other critical payments (54.6%) and a lack of technical support for bank communication (50.6%).
The process side shows the same pattern. 56.0% have no defined process for handling discrepancies, so each mismatch is handled case by case. Payroll shows the logic most clearly. 72.0% have opted out of applying VoP to payroll runs and 1.8% have opted in, since a false mismatch could delay salaries for thousands of employees. The survey's authors call opt-out a rational response to an immature technical and operational framework.
The US is approaching the same point
Nacha's 2026 rule changes require risk-based fraud monitoring from non-consumer Automated Clearing House (ACH) originators, in two phases starting 20 March 2026. The rules define false pretenses, which covers business email compromise and vendor impersonation. For US finance teams, that puts vendor bank account verification before payment release on the agenda, the same question Europe faces. The mechanism differs, since Europe places the requirement on payment providers and Nacha places monitoring duties on originators. The decision after an unexpected result is identical, though. The payment stops, continues or goes to someone for review. Europe's survey shows what happens when no one has defined that decision. For a primer, see what payee verification means for US payment teams.
What a usable verification result needs
The EACT recommendations address the layers around the check. They include separate VoP standards for corporate bulk payments, ERP modules that handle EBICS-based workflows, a best-practice guide for discrepancy handling and wider use of the legal entity identifier (LEI) to reduce reliance on name matching. EACT also proposes a follow-up survey in Q4 2026. Each recommendation concerns what happens after the answer comes back.
Payee verification has to be built for that moment. A usable result is structured so a system can read it, tied to a defined next step and available in the same form across borders. Names vary in punctuation, word order and legal form, which is why a close match result exists and why identifiers such as the LEI matter. Corporates that pay suppliers in many countries face VoP in the EU, Confirmation of Payee (CoP) in the UK and Nacha's rules in the US, and cannot run a separate process for each. Authenticating the payer does not verify the payee, so the check also has to sit before the payment is sent.
IPID builds payee verification infrastructure for cross-border payments, returning results that fit into existing payment workflows before funds move.
