Devbrew logo

The $2.8B Problem: How ML Stops Business Email Compromise Before Wire Transfers Execute

Stop $286K wire fraud before payments execute. ML invoice verification catches business email compromise attacks that traditional security misses. Act today.

13 min read•
Joe Kariuki
Joe KariukiFounder & Principal

Your finance team approved a $340,000 wire transfer to a trusted vendor last Tuesday. The invoice looked perfect. Same logo, same contact information, same payment terms you have been using for two years. The only difference was eight characters in the bank account number.

By the time your accounting team realized the mistake on Friday, the money was gone. Split across three countries. Untraceable. Your cyber insurance covered $150,000. You absorbed the rest. Then came the board meeting where you explained why your approval process failed and what you are doing to prevent it from happening again.

Business email compromise (BEC) resulted in $2.8 billion in reported losses in 2024 across 21,442 reported incidents. The average incident cost $286,000. BEC fraud attempts increased 1,760% year over year as generative AI made phishing emails indistinguishable from legitimate communication.

The brutal part? 63% of organizations experienced BEC attempts in 2024, and traditional email security tools caught less than 40% of sophisticated attacks. Your DMARC policies, email filters, and manual verification processes are not built for industrial-scale fraud that adapts faster than your team can react.

The good news is that you can stop these attacks before wire transfers execute. Not with better email filters, but with ML systems that verify every invoice against historical patterns, entity relationships, and vendor behavior profiles. Here is exactly how it works.

The core mechanism behind ML invoice verification

Every vendor in your system has an invoice fingerprint. Not just their bank details or email address, but the complete pattern of how they bill you. The invoice template they use. The specific line items that appear. The pricing structure. The payment terms. The email headers. Even the time of day invoices typically arrive.

Your current OCR tools extract text from invoices. LLM-based invoice intelligence goes three layers deeper. It builds a behavioral profile of every vendor relationship in your AP system. Then it compares every new invoice against that profile in real-time.

The system does not just check if the bank account number changed. It detects when the invoice template uses a different font. When line item descriptions use phrasing your vendor never uses. When the email routing path includes a relay server in an unexpected country. When supposedly unrelated vendors share identical invoice formatting patterns, which signals a coordinated fraud ring.

This is not rule-based detection. Rules fail the moment attackers adapt. Machine learning adapts with them. Every invoice the system processes makes it smarter about what normal looks like for your specific vendor relationships.

How the system works in your AP workflow

You do not replace your existing accounts payable system. The ML layer sits between your email gateway and your AP software. Here is what happens when an invoice arrives:

Document ingestion and parsing

The system captures every invoice that hits your AP inbox. Not just PDFs, but Word documents, Excel files, scanned images, and email body text. Natural language processing extracts structured data from unstructured formats: vendor name, bank details, invoice line items, amounts, dates, contact information, everything.

Historical profile matching

The system pulls the vendor's complete invoice history from your database. Then it compares the new invoice against every previous invoice from that vendor. Not just exact field matching, but behavioral pattern analysis. Does this invoice follow the same pricing structure? Do the line items match the vendor's product catalog? Is the payment term consistent with your contract?

Entity relationship mapping

This is where the system catches fraud that bypasses human review. It maps relationships between invoices across your entire vendor base. When two supposedly unrelated vendors use identical invoice templates, share overlapping bank account patterns, or send invoices through the same email infrastructure, the system flags a potential fraud ring.

Anomaly scoring in real-time

Every deviation from normal patterns gets scored. Small deviations like a new bank branch location get low scores. Major deviations like a completely different bank account or a template format you have never seen get high scores. The system does not just say yes or no. It gives you a risk score and shows you exactly what triggered the alert.

Automated verification against source documents

RAG-based retrieval cross-references every invoice against your purchase orders, vendor contracts, and historical payment data. If the invoice claims you ordered 500 units but your PO shows 200, the system catches it. If the price per unit increased 40% without a contract amendment, you get alerted before approval.

The entire process runs in under 3 seconds per invoice. Your finance team sees the risk score and supporting evidence before they even open the invoice. High-risk invoices get routed to manual review. Everything else flows through your normal approval process.

The mistakes finance teams make with BEC prevention

Most organizations treat invoice fraud like an email security problem. They implement DMARC policies. They train employees to spot phishing emails. They require phone call verification for wire transfers. Then they wonder why BEC fraud still gets through.

The problem is that email security stops compromised inboxes. It does not stop sophisticated invoice manipulation. When an attacker compromises your vendor's actual email account, your email filters see legitimate credentials. When they spoof phone numbers using VoIP services, your verification call goes to the fraudster.

Finance teams at payments companies also rely on manual invoice review processes that scale linearly with transaction volume. Your AP team checks invoices one by one. They verify bank details against spreadsheets. They spot-check line items against purchase orders. This worked when you processed 200 invoices per month. At 2,000 invoices per month, manual verification becomes statistical sampling. Fraudsters know this. They target high-volume periods when your team is overwhelmed.

The bigger mistake is treating invoice fraud as a one-time event. You get hit with BEC, you add another approval layer. You require dual authorization for wire transfers over $100,000. You implement vendor change request forms. Fraudsters adapt to every new control within weeks because your controls are static and their tactics evolve daily.

What happens when you stop BEC attacks before wire execution

85-95% reduction in successful BEC attacks $200K+ average loss prevention per caught fraud attempt 60% reduction in finance team time spent on manual invoice verification

The financial impact is immediate. Organizations running LLM-powered invoice verification systems see 85 to 95% reduction in successful BEC attacks. That translates to $200,000+ in average loss prevention per caught fraud attempt.

Your finance team also gets 60% of their time back. The hours spent on manual invoice verification, vendor detail confirmation, and fraud investigation drop dramatically. AP processors focus on exceptions, not every invoice. Your Treasury team stops playing defense and starts optimizing working capital.

You also get audit trails that insurance companies and regulators actually want. Every invoice verification decision is logged with supporting evidence. When you file an insurance claim or respond to an audit request, you have complete documentation of your fraud prevention controls. This reduces cyber insurance premiums and speeds up claim processing when fraud does occur.

The system also improves continuously. Every invoice processed makes the model smarter about your vendor patterns. Every fraud attempt caught becomes training data. Six months in, the system detects attack patterns you did not know existed because it spots correlations across thousands of invoices that no human reviewer could track.

Why most finance teams cannot build this internally

You might think this is just a machine learning model that you can build with your existing data team. The model is actually the easy part. Building a production system that processes invoices in real-time, integrates with your AP workflow, handles exceptions gracefully, and improves over time is where most internal projects fail.

You need data pipelines that ingest invoices from multiple formats and sources. You need OCR and NLP infrastructure that handles poor-quality scans, handwritten notes, and foreign language documents. You need entity resolution that deduplicates vendor records across inconsistent naming conventions. You need real-time scoring APIs that return results in under 3 seconds without impacting your AP system performance.

You also need monitoring and observability that catches model drift before it impacts detection accuracy. When your vendor base grows 40% in a quarter, the system needs to adapt. When your company acquires another business and merges AP systems, the models need retraining. This requires ML engineering capacity that most finance teams do not have.

The bigger challenge is maintaining the system over time. Fraud patterns evolve weekly. Your vendor relationships change constantly. New payment rails introduce new fraud vectors. Keeping an invoice verification system current requires dedicated engineering resources that most companies cannot justify for a single use case.

What you can do today to reduce BEC risk

You do not need to wait for a complete ML system to improve your invoice verification process. Here are specific steps you can take this week to reduce your exposure:

Audit your vendor master file for fraud indicators

Pull your last 12 months of invoice data and flag any vendors with 3+ bank account changes, especially if the changes happened within 90 days of each other. Cross-reference vendor addresses against incorporation records. Look for vendors using generic email domains (Gmail, Yahoo) instead of company domains. These are the relationships attackers target first.

Implement structured vendor change request procedures

When a vendor sends an email requesting bank detail updates, your AP team should use an independent communication channel to verify. Call the vendor using the phone number from your original contract, not the number in the email. Confirm the change with your vendor management contact before updating any bank details in your system. Document every verification attempt.

Map your invoice approval patterns

Create a simple spreadsheet tracking which invoices get expedited approval, which vendors have the highest transaction frequency, and which payment amounts fall just below your dual authorization thresholds. Review this monthly. Fraudsters study these patterns. If you process most wire transfers on Fridays, expect that is when BEC attacks will land in your inbox.

Set up basic anomaly alerts in your AP system

Even manual alerts help. Track each vendor's typical invoice amounts, payment frequencies, and bank account details. When new invoices arrive, flag anything that deviates by more than 20%. This is not scalable long-term, but it catches obvious fraud while you evaluate automated solutions.

If your organization processes more than 500 invoices per month, manual controls will not scale with your growth. The gap between when attackers adapt and when your team catches new tactics will widen. That gap is where $286,000 wire transfer losses happen.

How Devbrew builds invoice intelligence systems that stop fraud

We build LLM-powered invoice verification systems that integrate directly into your accounts payable workflow. Our approach combines document intelligence with entity relationship analysis to catch sophisticated fraud that bypasses traditional email security controls.

Unlike generic fraud detection tools, we train models specifically on B2B payment patterns and your vendor base. The system learns your vendor relationships, your payment rhythms, and your AP team's approval patterns. Detection accuracy improves as your transaction volume grows because the models have more context about what normal looks like in your specific business.

We handle the full engineering stack. Data pipelines that ingest invoices from email, document management systems, and AP portals. NLP models that extract structured data from any invoice format. Real-time scoring APIs that return risk assessments in under 3 seconds. Monitoring infrastructure that alerts you to model drift before detection accuracy degrades. AI-powered invoice verification that catches what your current fraud detection systems miss.

The system we build plugs into your existing AP workflow without forcing your team to change their processes. Your invoices get scored automatically. High-risk items get flagged with specific evidence. Everything else flows through your normal approval chain. Your finance team gets their time back and your wire transfers stop going to fraudsters.

Understand your BEC exposure

If you want to understand where BEC attacks would slip through your current controls, we can help you map your exposure. We will discuss the core challenges in your AP workflow, the fraud patterns targeting payments companies, and where AI can create meaningful leverage in your fraud prevention stack.

You will leave with clarity on your risk profile, potential solutions, and whether an ML-based approach makes sense for your transaction volume and vendor complexity. No pitch, just honest assessment of where you are vulnerable.

This conversation is designed for CFOs, Treasurers, and VPs of Finance at B2B payments companies processing 500+ invoices monthly.

Email me at joe@devbrew.ai or book time directly at https://cal.com/joekariuki/devbrew to start the conversation.

Sources and references

BEC fraud statistics and losses:

  • FBI Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). (2024). 2024 Internet Crime Report. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved from https://www.ic3.gov/AnnualReport/Reports/2024_IC3Report.pdf
    • $2.8 billion in BEC losses (2024)
    • 21,442 BEC complaints reported (2024)
    • Total cybercrime losses exceeded $16.6 billion
  • Association for Financial Professionals (AFP). (2025). 2025 Fraud and Control Survey Report.
    • 63% of organizations experienced BEC attempts in 2024

BEC attack frequency and trends:

Average BEC incident costs:

  • FBI IC3 data via multiple industry sources analyzing 2024 breach costs
    • Average BEC incident: $286,000 in direct wire transfer losses
    • Note: This represents direct financial losses. IBM's higher figures ($4.88M average breach cost) include business disruption, investigation, remediation, and regulatory costs.

Data breach costs and industry analysis:

Note on statistics: All figures represent reported incidents and may underestimate actual fraud losses, as many organizations do not publicly disclose BEC attacks. The $286,000 average represents direct wire transfer losses, while comprehensive breach costs (including business disruption, investigation, and remediation) average significantly higher. FBI figures focus on direct financial theft, while IBM and Verizon reports capture total organizational impact.

LinkedinShare on LinkedInXShare on X

Let’s explore your AI roadmap

We help payments teams build production AI that reduces losses, improves speed, and strengthens margins. Reach out and we can help you get started.