Trust in payments is often invisible. Most people only notice it when something goes wrong. Day to day, money moves, balances update and customers access their funds without thinking about the systems working behind the scenes.
This confidence is easy to take for granted, but it is also becoming harder to sustain. A recent technical issue affecting Lloyds, Halifax and Bank of Scotland, which briefly exposed account information between customers, showed how quickly confidence can be tested when system resilience and controls come under pressure. The problem is that incidents like this do not just create operational disruption, they’re a stark reminder that trust depends on the ability of payment systems to perform accurately, securely and consistently.
Go deeper with GlobalData
Access deeper industry intelligence
Experience unmatched clarity with a single platform that combines unique data, AI, and human expertise.
This challenge is becoming more urgent as payments become faster, more connected and more dependent on several systems working together in real time. Instant payment schemes now allow transactions to move within seconds, which leaves very little time to detect, stop or recover fraudulent activity once funds have left an account.
Payment environments that were once more contained have become always-on ecosystems operating at speed and scale. As a result, the basis of trust is changing. It no longer rests only on institutional reputation or customer intent. It depends on whether systems can operate reliably, without unnecessary friction or uncertainty, even when pressure increases.
For financial institutions, trust can no longer be assumed or checked after the event. It hasto be maintained continuously, across every transaction, channel and payment rail. So, what happens when that trust comes under strain?
Where trust starts to break down
When trust is tested in payments, the problem is rarely caused by one failure alone. More often, it points to a wider breakdown in how institutions track and evidence the movement of money across increasingly complex operating environments.
For banks and payment providers, the priority is to maintain a clear, real-time understanding of client funds. When that view becomes fragmented, trust is exposed. The issue is not simply whether controls exist, but whether they can work reliably under pressure, across multiple systems and payment rails.
Stablecoins show how quickly this challenge is evolving. They are becoming a more important part of the global payments and digital asset ecosystem, while regulators and financial institutions are paying closer attention to how these new rails are governed. Cases linked to sanctions evasion and money laundering have increased scrutiny, while issuers such as Tether have frozen more than $4.2bn in assets associated with illicit activity.
The issue is not the technology itself. It is whether institutions have the right controls, monitoring and compliance architecture to support faster, borderless payment ecosystems safely and at scale. As digital assets develop, financial crime is developing with them, which makes stronger screening, risk management and transaction monitoring more important.
At the same time, many institutions are still working with fragmented operating models. Payments data, reconciliation information, fraud signals, AML alerts and compliance records often sit across separate systems. Some of this data is structured, some is not, and much of it is difficult to bring together quickly. The move to ISO 20022 creates an important opportunity to address this. By supporting richer and more structured payment data, ISO 20022 can improve interoperability across payment networks while strengthening screening, fraud detection, reconciliation and investigation.
Fraud and financial crime are connected risks. They move across channels and exploit the gaps between systems, teams and data sources. Without a unified view, important signals can be missed, patterns become harder to identify and the ability to follow the movement of funds from end to end is weakened. This means ISO 20022 should be seen as more than a migration or compliance exercise. Its real value lies in giving institutions the data foundations needed to improve intelligence, operational resilience and control across the payment lifecycle.
Fragmentation also places pressure on operations and compliance teams. Investigations are often manual, time-sensitive and dependent on data being pulled together from different functions. In fast-moving payment environments, this delay matters. Small discrepancies can escalate before they are detected. By the time an issue is fully understood, customers may already have been affected, regulatory concerns may have been raised or the institution may be exposed to financial and reputational risk.
This creates a growing gap between how quickly payments now move and how institutions monitor, control and safeguard the flow of client funds. As that gap widens, trust becomes harder to maintain. Not because institutions lack controls, but because many controls were not designed for the speed and complexity of modern payments. Closing that gap requires a different approach to safeguarding.
Safeguarding at the speed of money
Safeguarding needs to move from a downstream compliance activity to something built directly into the payment flow. This means applying checks and verification in real time, before a transaction is completed, rather than relying mainly on retrospective review.
Verification of Payee, also known as Confirmation of Payee, is a clear example of this shift. By helping institutions confirm account ownership before funds are sent, these checks reduce fraud risk and strengthen trust at the point of transaction. In instant payment environments, where settlement happens within seconds, this kind of embedded control is becoming essential.
In practice, institutions need continuous insight into the movement of funds across systems and channels. Controls must be applied consistently, regardless of where or how payments are processed. Instead of depending on periodic reconciliation or after-the-event checks, safeguarding has to operate as an always-on capability that identifies anomalies early, strengthens assurance and reduces the need for reactive investigation.
This does not mean institutions must dismantle the systems that already support payment operations. In many cases, modernisation is more effective when layers of intelligence, monitoring and control are added around existing infrastructure. By connecting data across payment, fraud and compliance functions, institutions can build a more joined-up operating view without disrupting the services customers rely on.
This also reflects the reality of today’s payment environment. Multiple rails, formats and data sources are now part of everyday operations. Resilience depends less on any one system and more on how well those systems are coordinated. A more holistic, data-driven view allows institutions to analyse structured and unstructured data together, connect risk signals in real time and move from fragmented oversight to more proactive control.
Ultimately, both safeguarding and trust are judged by outcomes. When trust is built into the architecture of payment systems, rather than applied as an additional layer of oversight, institutions are better placed to maintain control under pressure. They can also reduce operational strain and respond more effectively as new risks emerge.
Keeping trust intact
Trust is on the line for modern payments because the conditions that once supported it have changed. Payments are faster, ecosystems are more interconnected and the margin for error is smaller. What was once assumed now has to be continuously proven.
For financial institutions, this is no longer only a compliance issue. It is a question of operational control. The priority is to connect payment processing, screening, fraud controls and case investigation into a single operating view – one that allows institutions to see, understand and act on the movement of money in real time.
In a faster and more interconnected payments environment, maintaining trust depends on detecting risk early, responding quickly and following the flow of funds clearly across the payment lifecycle.
That is why trust can no longer be retrofitted into modern payments after the fact. It has to be designed into every stage of the payment flow.
Tareq Shaheen, Director of Product Management for Payment Solutions at Eastnets
