The Fraud Triangle: Understanding Why Workplace Fraud Happens

Three factors that every accounts payable professional should understand.

Why do trusted employees sometimes commit fraud? The answer may lie in a concept known as the Fraud Triangle, developed from the research of criminologist Donald Cressey.

The model identifies three conditions commonly associated with occupational fraud.

1. Pressure or Incentive

Financial difficulties, personal debt, family obligations, or workplace expectations can create pressure. While most people facing these challenges remain honest, pressure can become a motivating factor in fraudulent behavior.

2. Opportunity

Weak internal controls can create opportunities for fraud. In accounts payable, these may include inadequate segregation of duties, unrestricted vendor master file access, or payments processed without independent approval.

Of the three factors, opportunity is the one organizations can most directly control.

3. Rationalization

Individuals may justify dishonest actions with statements such as "I'm only borrowing the money," "I'll pay it back," or "The company owes me."

These rationalizations can make unethical behavior seem acceptable.

What This Means for Accounts Payable

AP departments can reduce fraud opportunities through proper segregation of duties, independent verification of vendor banking changes, regular reconciliations, and consistent approval procedures.

Even long-serving, trusted employees should be subject to the same controls.

The Bottom Line

The Fraud Triangle reminds us that fraud involves human behavior as well as weaknesses in financial processes.

Trust your people, but build controls that protect everyone.

Editorial Note: This article was developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence and edited, reviewed, and approved by Robert Ruhno, Executive Director of the Accounts Payable Professionals Group (APPG).

---

Robert Ruhno Executive Director APPG

LinkedIn X Facebook Instagram

Back to top ↑

Dominican Republic Expands Mandatory E-Invoicing November 1

The Dominican Republic's tax authority has confirmed a November 1 electronic invoicing deadline for large local and medium-sized taxpayers.

Global AP Compliance

Large local and medium-sized taxpayers must switch to electronic fiscal invoices, while smaller businesses face a separate November 15 deadline.

By Accounts Payable Professionals Group
October 27, 2026

The Dominican Republic is moving into another phase of mandatory electronic invoicing, with new requirements taking effect November 1, 2026.

The country's tax authority, the Dirección General de Impuestos Internos (DGII), issued a reminder on October 26 confirming that businesses classified as large local taxpayers and medium-sized taxpayers must begin issuing fiscal documents exclusively in electronic format.

The requirement forms part of the country's broader effort to modernize tax administration, improve financial transparency and reduce paperwork.

Key Compliance Dates

• October 31, 2026: Previously assigned non-electronic type B fiscal receipt sequences expire for affected large local and medium-sized taxpayers.
• November 1, 2026: Large local and medium-sized taxpayers must issue electronic fiscal receipts using type E sequences.
• November 15, 2026: Extended electronic invoicing implementation deadline for small, micro and unclassified taxpayers.

What Changes November 1?

Affected taxpayers must issue electronic fiscal receipts, known as comprobantes fiscales electrónicos (e-CF), using the designated type E numbering sequences.

Previously assigned non-electronic fiscal receipt sequences, identified as type B, remain valid for these taxpayers only through October 31, 2026.

Beginning November 1, the use of non-electronic receipts will generally be restricted to exceptional contingency situations permitted under Regulation No. 587-24.

The DGII is urging affected businesses to complete their administrative and technology preparations before the deadline to avoid interruptions in their invoicing operations.

Smaller Businesses Have Until November 15

The November 1 requirement does not apply to every taxpayer on the same schedule.

The DGII has granted businesses classified as small, micro and unclassified taxpayers an extension through November 15, 2026, to complete their transition to electronic invoicing.

These businesses should confirm their classification and applicable requirements directly with the tax authority.

The DGII reported on October 19 that 100,000 taxpayers had already become electronic invoice issuers.

In its October 26 announcement, the agency also reported that 195 authorized electronic invoicing service providers were available to support implementation.

What This Means for Accounts Payable

Although the November 1 requirement primarily concerns how affected businesses issue invoices, the transition also has practical implications for accounts payable departments receiving those documents.

Companies purchasing goods or services from Dominican suppliers should review their invoice intake and validation procedures.

AP departments may need to confirm that supplier invoices contain the appropriate electronic fiscal identifiers and that their accounting or ERP systems can properly record those identifiers.

Supplier communication will also be important. Businesses should understand which suppliers are affected by the November 1 deadline and which qualify for the later November 15 transition.

Invoice exceptions may require additional attention during the changeover, particularly when a supplier submits a document using an outdated fiscal receipt sequence.

AP teams should coordinate with their tax departments before rejecting or processing questionable documents.

AP Action Point

Organizations doing business with Dominican suppliers should take four practical steps:

1. Identify suppliers affected by the November 1 electronic invoicing requirement.
2. Confirm that invoice intake and ERP workflows can accommodate the required electronic fiscal documents and identifiers.
3. Review procedures for handling invoices submitted with outdated non-electronic receipt sequences.
4. Coordinate with tax and compliance teams on permitted exceptions and the November 15 deadline for smaller taxpayers.

The Dominican Republic's transition is another example of how electronic invoicing requirements are changing the relationship between tax compliance and everyday AP operations.

For accounts payable professionals, the immediate concern is maintaining accurate invoice records and avoiding unnecessary payment delays as suppliers move to the new requirements.

Sources:

• DGII, October 26, 2026: Electronic Invoicing Requirements for Large Local and Medium-Sized Taxpayers
• DGII, October 19, 2026: 100,000 Taxpayers Become Electronic Invoice Issuers
• DGII: Official Electronic Fiscal Receipt Technical Documentation

IRS FIRE System Shuts Down November 19: What AP Teams Must Do Before the Deadline

By Accounts Payable Professionals Group | October 27, 2026

IRS headquarters in Washington, D.C. Photograph: Carol M. Highsmith / Library of Congress. Editorial graphic: Accounts Payable Professionals Group.

The Internal Revenue Service is preparing to retire its Filing Information Returns Electronically (FIRE) system, with the final filing cutoff set for November 19, 2026, at 3 p.m. Eastern Time.

For accounts payable departments responsible for Forms 1099 and other information returns, the change means preparing for a different electronic filing system before the 2027 reporting season.

The replacement is the IRS Information Returns Intake System (IRIS). Companies that currently use FIRE will need to transition to IRIS to electronically file tax year 2026 information returns in 2027.

Three Deadlines AP Teams Should Know

According to the IRS, three important dates are approaching:

• November 1, 2026: Final day to submit test information returns through the FIRE testing system.
• November 9, 2026: Final day to update existing FIRE Transmitter Control Code (TCC) applications.
• November 19, 2026, at 3 p.m. ET: Final deadline to submit information returns through FIRE.

These are FIRE system retirement dates, not a replacement for the regular deadlines to furnish and file 2026 tax information returns during the 2027 filing season.

What Changes With IRIS?

IRIS offers two electronic filing methods: the IRS Taxpayer Portal and an Application-to-Application (A2A) channel. The portal allows businesses to prepare and submit information returns online. A2A supports electronic transmissions from compatible software systems.

Organizations must obtain an IRIS-specific Transmitter Control Code. An existing FIRE TCC does not automatically provide access to IRIS.

That distinction is especially important for companies using accounting software, ERP systems, or outside filing providers that previously relied on FIRE.

What AP Departments Should Do Now

AP managers should coordinate with tax, accounting, IT, and any third-party filing provider to confirm that their organization is ready for the transition.

1. Identify your current filing method. Determine whether your organization or its filing provider uses FIRE.
2. Confirm IRIS registration. Verify that the required IRIS TCC application has been completed.
3. Review system compatibility. Ask software providers whether their filing process supports IRIS.
4. Check vendor records. Review taxpayer identification numbers, names, addresses, and other information needed for accurate reporting.
5. Plan for testing and corrections. Establish procedures for validating files and handling rejected or corrected submissions.

Why This Matters

Year-end information reporting is already a demanding responsibility for many AP departments. A filing-system transition adds another operational risk if companies wait until January to prepare.

Although the IRS is retiring FIRE, it is not ending electronic information return filing. IRIS will become the electronic filing system for information returns previously handled through FIRE.

The bottom line: AP teams should treat November 19 as the final FIRE submission deadline and use the remaining time to prepare for the 2027 filing season.

Official IRS Resources

• IRS announcement: Information return filing system transition
• IRS FIRE retirement information
• IRS Information Returns Intake System

Four Charged After Corporate Vendor Checks Were Stolen and Altered

AP Hall of Shame

Federal prosecutors say checks intended for legitimate suppliers were diverted into accounts controlled by defendants, highlighting a payment risk that can survive the invoice approval process.

By Accounts Payable Professionals Group | October 26, 2026

AI-generated editorial illustration of alleged check alteration. Not an actual check or evidence from the case.

Four people have been charged in a federal case involving corporate checks that prosecutors allege were stolen, altered and deposited into accounts belonging to people other than the intended recipients.

The case, announced by the U.S. Department of Justice on October 5, 2026, involves checks issued by a multinational corporation to legitimate vendors. The allegations illustrate a troubling possibility for accounts payable departments: a payment can pass internal approval procedures and still fail to reach the supplier it was meant to pay.

The Alleged Scheme

According to federal prosecutors, an eight-count indictment names four defendants: Cory L. Sims Jr., Dondre O. Daniels, Christian M. Hill and Makhia L. Duncan.

Prosecutors allege that checks originally payable to legitimate vendors were obtained and altered by removing the intended payees' names and substituting names associated with the defendants or an identity-theft victim.

The altered checks were allegedly deposited into accounts controlled by participants in the scheme. Funds were then withdrawn or transferred through various transactions.

The Justice Department alleges that Hill laundered more than $45,000 and Duncan laundered more than $34,000. The announcement does not establish a single total loss amount for the entire alleged scheme.

Where Accounts Payable Comes Into the Picture

Many AP controls focus on what happens before payment: vendor verification, invoice matching, approval authority and duplicate-payment prevention. Those safeguards remain essential.

But this case concerns a different exposure: what happens after a legitimate payment has been issued.

A properly approved check can still become the target of theft or alteration before the intended supplier receives it.

The indictment does not establish how the checks were obtained or whether the corporation involved had inadequate internal controls. The lesson for AP professionals is therefore about the risk illustrated by the allegations, not a finding of wrongdoing by the company that issued the checks.

Four Controls Worth Reviewing

1. Positive Pay with payee verification. Where available, use bank services that compare presented checks against issued-check records, including payee information rather than check number and amount alone.
2. Bank reconciliation and check-image review. Investigate unusual cleared checks and review available images when payee details or payment activity appear inconsistent.
3. Secure check distribution. Limit access to printed checks, protect mailing processes and evaluate whether electronic payments can reduce exposure to physical check interception.
4. Missing-payment investigations. When a vendor reports nonreceipt, confirm whether a check cleared, inspect the available endorsement and deposit information, and coordinate promptly with the bank.

The Lesson for AP

Effective payment controls do not end when an invoice is approved or a check is printed. They extend through payment delivery, clearing, reconciliation and the resolution of supplier inquiries.

A check marked as paid in the accounting system does not necessarily mean the correct vendor received the money.

That distinction matters when a supplier calls about an overdue balance that AP records show as already paid.

Question for AP leaders: When a vendor reports that a payment never arrived, how quickly can your department determine where the money actually went?

Legal note: The defendants have been charged, not convicted. An indictment contains allegations, and all defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in court.

---

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Four Charged in Multistate Bank Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme (October 5, 2026).

Accounts Payable Professionals Group covers payment fraud, financial controls, regulatory developments and the evolving responsibilities of AP professionals.

Editorial note: AI tools assisted in preparing this article and its illustration. The report is based on the cited Justice Department announcement.

You Expensed WHAT? The Strangest Things People Have Tried to Get Reimbursed

ACCOUNTS PAYABLE • EXPENSE REPORTS • AP LIFE

From a blue lobster costume to a Rolex, expense reports have a way of reminding Accounts Payable professionals that almost anything can eventually land in the approval queue.

By Accounts Payable Professionals Group
October 23, 2026

If you have worked in Accounts Payable long enough, eventually an expense report lands in front of you that makes you stop and ask one simple question:

“They want us to reimburse WHAT?”

Most expense reports are routine. Airfare. Hotels. Mileage. Client meals.

And then there are the other ones.

A Blue Lobster Costume, a Monkey and a Patio Set

In 2023, finance publication CFO Brew asked readers to share some of the strangest reimbursement requests they had encountered.

The answers did not disappoint.

Among the reported expenses were a blue lobster costume, paddleboarding in Miami and a new patio set and gas grill purchased for a “team-building” event held at an executive's home.

One employee reportedly needed a replacement iPhone after a monkey stole the original.

There was even a last-minute tattoo involving the logo of expense-management company Expensify.

These stories were submitted by finance professionals and readers. APPG has not independently verified the individual anecdotes, but they illustrate something many AP professionals already know: unusual reimbursement requests are hardly unusual.

Accountants Have Seen Some Things

The stories did not stop there.

At the 2025 Accountex accounting conference, accountants and bookkeepers were asked about some of the most outrageous expenses they had encountered.

Reported claims included a Rolex watch, wedding dresses and engagement rings, cosmetic surgery, school fees, doggy daycare and an aquarium.

Someone reportedly attempted to claim approximately £500 worth of McDonald's.

And then there was the racehorse.

The explanations can be nearly as creative as the expenses themselves. One Rolex was reportedly justified as necessary “to get to meetings.”

And Then There Are the Really Expensive Ones

Some unusual expense claims go far beyond a questionable meal or an unconventional business purchase.

A 2026 roundup published by spend-management company Moss highlighted several well-documented corporate cases involving expense abuse.

In one case involving a former Atlanta Hawks finance executive, fraudulent spending included a $115,795 diamond ring along with other luxury purchases.

Another case involving former Walmart vice chairman Thomas Coughlin included personal expenses for hunting equipment, liquor and a $2,590 dog enclosure.

At that point, the stories stop being funny.

Funny Until It Isn't

Expense-report creativity has also entered the AI era.

Research released by travel and expense platform Perk in 2026 found that 20% of 8,000 surveyed employees across five countries said they regularly misrepresent expense claims. Eight percent said they regularly use AI-generated receipts.

Separate 2026 research from Medius surveyed 2,386 senior finance professionals in the United States, United Kingdom, Sweden and France. According to the study, 87% said they had ignored a small expense, reimbursement or claim they believed was fraudulent.

AP reality: The strange expense report can be funny. The control problem behind it may not be. Small questionable expenses can become larger losses when employees learn that nobody is looking.

Strange Doesn't Always Mean Wrong

There is also an important distinction between something being strange and something being improper.

Dog boarding might initially sound like an unusual business expense, for example. But some employers allow pet-care expenses when an employee is required to travel.

A strange expense therefore should not automatically be rejected.

The real questions are whether the expense has a legitimate business purpose, whether company policy allows it, whether the documentation supports it and whether the appropriate person approved it.

Sometimes the strangest-looking expense has a perfectly reasonable explanation.

And sometimes that $14.72 receipt deserves a second look.

APPG DISCUSSION

Now We Want to Hear From AP

What's the craziest, funniest or most questionable thing you've ever seen submitted on an expense report?

No employee names. No company names. No confidential information.

Just tell us what they tried to expense. If we receive enough responses, we'll collect some of the best stories for a follow-up featuring experiences from AP professionals themselves.

---

Sources and further reading

CFO Brew, “Odd, outrageous, and downright silly reimbursement requests,” March 24, 2023.
CFO Brew

Cloud2Me, “From Rolexes to Racehorses: The Most Outrageous Expense Claims Revealed at Accountex 2025.”
Cloud2Me / Accountex 2025

Moss, “The Most Ridiculous Expense Reports Ever Submitted,” 2026.
Moss

Perk, 2026 employee expense research.
Perk

Medius, 2026 Financial Census research on expense and reimbursement fraud.
Medius

South Africa Opens Payment System to Non-Banks in Major Payments Reform

PAYMENTS • GLOBAL AP • SOUTH AFRICA

South Africa is preparing to give non-bank payment providers greater direct access to the country's payment infrastructure, a reform that could eventually create new options for how businesses send and receive payments.

By Accounts Payable Professionals Group
October 22, 2026

South Africa is moving ahead with a major overhaul of its national payment system that will expand participation beyond traditional banks.

Under the South African Reserve Bank's Payments Ecosystem Modernisation (PEM) Programme, non-bank organizations such as fintech companies, retailers and other payment service providers will gain greater access to the country's payment infrastructure.

The changes are intended to increase competition, encourage innovation and make South Africa's payment system more efficient and accessible.

For accounts payable teams, the reform is worth watching because expanding the number of organizations able to participate directly in payment infrastructure could eventually increase the number of payment options available to businesses.

WHAT AP SHOULD KNOW:
This is a developing payment-system reform, not an immediate change to AP procedures. Businesses should continue using their existing approved banking and payment channels while monitoring which non-bank providers become authorized participants as the new framework is implemented.

Moving Beyond a Bank-Only Model

South Africa's existing payment system includes banks, clearing participants, system operators and third-party payment providers. Direct participation in important parts of the infrastructure, however, has historically been centered heavily on banks.

The Reserve Bank's modernization programme is designed to broaden that structure.

A key part of the plan is the development of a national payments utility that will provide shared digital payment infrastructure to a broader range of participants, including non-bank financial service providers.

The Reserve Bank also plans an activity-based regulatory model that will allow qualifying non-bank organizations to perform payment activities and access clearing and settlement systems directly without relying on bank sponsorship.

What Changes for Accounts Payable?

For most AP departments, nothing changes immediately.

Companies should not interpret the reform as meaning that any fintech, retailer or telecom company can now replace a bank for corporate payments. Providers will still need to meet regulatory, licensing, operational and security requirements before participating under the new framework.

The longer-term implications could be more significant.

Greater competition among payment providers could eventually give businesses additional choices for supplier payments, improve payment speed and put pressure on transaction costs. It may also create new integration opportunities between payment providers, accounting systems and AP platforms.

That would make provider governance increasingly important. AP and treasury teams evaluating new payment channels will need to consider authorization status, security, fraud controls, reconciliation capabilities, payment visibility and how each provider integrates with existing financial systems.

A Reform to Watch Into 2027

The modernization effort will continue in stages. Initial non-bank participation is expected during 2027 as South Africa develops the regulatory framework and supporting payment infrastructure.

That makes the reform something AP leaders should monitor rather than something that requires an immediate process change.

The larger question is whether opening payment infrastructure to more regulated providers will ultimately give businesses faster, less expensive and more flexible ways to pay suppliers.

If that happens, South Africa could provide an important example of how opening national payment systems to non-bank participants changes the corporate payments landscape.

APPG Discussion

If regulated non-bank providers could connect directly to payment infrastructure, would your AP department consider using them for supplier payments, or would you prefer to keep payments with traditional banks?

Sources:
South African Reserve Bank, Payments Ecosystem Modernisation Programme
South African Reserve Bank, Payments and Settlements
Reuters, October 16, 2026

Ethiopia Joins Pan-African Payment Network, Opening New Path for Cross-Border Payments

GLOBAL AP • PAYMENTS • AFRICA

Ethiopia's participation in a regional payment system could eventually give businesses a simpler way to pay suppliers across African borders.

By Accounts Payable Professionals Group
Published October 21, 2026, 5:30 AM EDT
Updated October 21, 2026, 10:30 AM EDT

The National Bank of Ethiopia has joined the Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS), opening the way for Ethiopian financial institutions to connect with participating banks elsewhere in Africa.

PAPSS facilitates cross-border payments using local currencies, reducing reliance on foreign currencies such as the U.S. dollar. The system aims to simplify transactions that traditionally involve currency conversions, correspondent banks, additional fees, and longer settlement times.

What It Means for AP

For accounts payable departments managing suppliers across African borders, PAPSS could eventually offer a more efficient alternative to traditional international bank transfers.

However, Ethiopia's participation does not mean the network is immediately available to every Ethiopian business. Individual financial institutions must connect to PAPSS and meet applicable operational and compliance requirements.

The announcement did not identify the first participating Ethiopian commercial banks or provide a date for live commercial transactions.

WHAT AP SHOULD KNOW:
Companies paying Ethiopian suppliers should monitor which banks begin offering PAPSS transactions and evaluate the network's availability, settlement times, fees, and compliance requirements before considering changes to their payment procedures.

Ethiopia's participation marks another step in the development of regional payment infrastructure for African trade. For AP teams, the practical impact will depend on how widely banks and businesses adopt the system.

Editor's Note (October 21, 2026): This article was edited for clarity and concision. No substantive changes were made to the original reporting.

Sources:
National Bank of Ethiopia
Pan-African Payment and Settlement System (PAPSS)