Topic starter
22/07/2026 4:38 pm
TL;DR: Payment fraud bypass rose to 2.8%, account takeover attempts fell to 0.88%, and chargebacks increased 19% to 0.31%, indicating attackers are targeting fewer, higher-value accounts while losses increase, according to Sift’s Q2 2026 benchmarking. The practical lesson is that block rate alone is no longer a reliable success metric; teams need cost-per-attack and dispute-lag visibility.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Sift: “When Fraud Gets Targeted: Q2 2026 Benchmarks Reveal the Shift”.
By the numbers:
- Payment fraud bypass rate held steady at 2.8% in Q2 2026, down 14% year-over-year from Q2 2025.
- Account takeover attempts declined to 0.88% in Q2 2026 from 0.95% in Q1, a 7% quarterly improvement.
- Overall chargeback rate rose 19% to 0.31% in Q2 2026 from 0.26% in Q1.
Key questions
Q: What breaks when fraud controls are optimised only for block rate?
A: Block-rate-only tuning can make fraud operations look efficient while letting higher-value compromises through.
Q: Why do chargebacks rise even when fraud attempts fall?
A: Chargebacks can rise because attackers are becoming more selective, focusing on trusted accounts that are harder to flag at transaction time.
Q: What are the signs that a fraud programme is missing targeted account abuse?
A: Look for declining review volumes, flat or improving block rates, and rising chargebacks or customer complaints.
Practitioner guidance
- Segment controls by account value Create distinct fraud thresholds for high-value accounts, subscription accounts, and stored-payment profiles so that controls reflect the actual loss potential of each account class.
- Track dispute lag as a control signal Measure the delay between transaction approval and chargeback discovery, then compare that lag to your review and block rates to spot hidden deterioration.
- Tie authentication strength to loss exposure Require stronger step-up checks or 2FA for accounts with direct fund access, repeat billing authority, or unusually high expected lifetime value.
Bottom line: The core problem is not rising attack volume, but more selective fraud that extracts greater value from trusted accounts before detection.
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
22/07/2026 4:42 pm
Targeted fraud has become a trust exploitation problem, not a volume problem. The article shows that attackers are now choosing established accounts because trust reduces friction and increases conversion. That shifts the governance question from how many attempts are blocked to how much loss a trusted account can absorb before detection.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Nearly 60% of companies reported that fraud losses were still increasing in 2025.
A question worth separating out:
Q: How should teams balance authentication and fraud decisioning for high-value accounts?
A: High-value accounts should face tighter authentication because the fraud impact is larger and the attacker payoff is better. The practical approach is to combine stronger step-up checks with account-specific risk scoring so that legitimate customers are not over-fricted while trusted access is not over-relied upon.
👉 Read our full editorial: Fraud is shifting to high-value accounts as chargeback losses rise