Oracle's New AI Could Change How Accounts Payable Works

Illustration: A conceptual AI-powered finance dashboard showing how invoice review, exception analysis and human approvals might work together. This is not an actual Oracle product screenshot.

Automation Watch | Controls & Risk

Oracle is introducing AI tools that can investigate financial problems, analyze purchasing activity and help employees get work done. What could this mean for accounts payable?

Imagine opening your accounting system and asking it to investigate a problem instead of spending the next hour searching through reports, transactions and approval histories.

That is the kind of experience Oracle is working toward with its latest artificial intelligence announcements.

During Oracle AI World in Las Vegas on October 26 and 27, 2026, the company introduced and expanded AI capabilities across its Fusion Cloud Applications, including finance, procurement and business analytics.

The announcements point toward a future in which employees can give business software an objective, ask questions in everyday language and receive help carrying out authorized work.

For accounts payable professionals, the implications could be significant.

Why This Matters to AP

Oracle's new capabilities could make it easier for finance and purchasing teams to investigate exceptions, understand spending patterns and coordinate work across departments. Organizations will still need strong controls over data access, approvals and financial decisions.

What Exactly Did Oracle Announce?

Oracle announced a broader set of what it calls agentic applications.

In simple terms, these are AI-powered tools designed to work toward a defined business goal. Rather than responding only to a single question, they can examine information, evaluate options, coordinate steps and carry out authorized actions within established business rules.

Oracle says 25 applications powered by its Fusion Claw technology are now available across its enterprise application portfolio.

Several are particularly relevant to finance and purchasing departments.

Investigating Accounting Exceptions

Oracle's Ledger agentic application is designed to help finance teams reconcile accounting information, investigate unusual entries and identify exceptions that may require attention.

This could support the investigation of problems that affect financial reporting and the month-end close.

Although Ledger is an accounting application, AP departments frequently contribute to reconciliation work involving invoices, liabilities and transaction records.

Looking More Closely at Purchasing

Oracle's Procurement Spend application analyzes purchasing, supplier agreement and spending information.

According to Oracle, it can identify spending outside approved purchasing arrangements, investigate potential contract leakage and recommend corrective actions for review.

That could be useful when finance and procurement teams need to understand why purchases were made outside established agreements or why expected savings were not realized.

Asking Questions in Plain English

Oracle also announced new capabilities for Fusion Data Intelligence that allow business users to explore information through natural-language questions.

Instead of building a report from scratch, a user could ask a question about business performance and explore the results through follow-up questions.

Oracle says its Data Agents are generally available. Its more advanced Deep Insight Agents are planned for general availability within the next 12 months.

That distinction matters. Some capabilities are available today, while others are still part of Oracle's future product plans.

What If You Could Just Ask the System?

One of the more interesting announcements involves Oracle Fusion Companion.

Oracle describes it as an intelligent layer that connects business requests with the appropriate transactions, workflows, approvals and AI applications.

For example, imagine an AP supervisor asking a connected finance system:

"Which invoices are holding up our month-end close, and what needs attention first?"

A properly configured AI-enabled workflow might help gather the relevant information, identify possible problems and direct employees toward the next steps.

This is an illustrative AP scenario, rather than a confirmed demonstration of a specific Oracle feature.

Oracle says Fusion Companion can work through supported AI tools and use existing enterprise permissions and approval processes to coordinate authorized activity.

The important idea is that employees may eventually spend less time navigating multiple screens to find the information they need.

How Could This Change Accounts Payable?

AP departments already use automation for tasks such as invoice capture, purchase order matching, approval routing and payment preparation.

AI agents introduce the possibility of assisting with work that requires investigation and coordination.

Three areas deserve particular attention.

1. Faster Exception Research

When an invoice cannot be processed, an AP specialist may need to review the purchase order, receiving records, supplier information and previous activity.

AI tools that can investigate related records could help employees understand the problem more quickly.

The actual benefit will depend on the system's capabilities, data quality and how the organization configures it.

2. Better Visibility Into Spending

AP teams often see the financial results of purchasing decisions after those decisions have been made.

Better connections between procurement, finance and analytical systems could help organizations identify unusual spending patterns earlier.

For example, procurement teams may be able to investigate purchasing outside negotiated contracts and work with AP to understand the related invoice activity.

3. Less Time Searching for Information

AP professionals frequently move between screens, reports and transaction histories to answer relatively straightforward questions.

Conversational tools could simplify some of that research by bringing information together in one place.

However, organizations should test whether the answers are accurate, complete and supported by the underlying financial records.

Who Is Watching the AI?

Giving software greater responsibility creates an important question: who is accountable when something goes wrong?

Oracle emphasizes that its agentic applications operate within organizational permissions, policies and approval requirements.

Those safeguards will be especially important in accounts payable, where mistakes can result in duplicate payments, incorrect financial records or fraud losses.

Before expanding the use of AI, AP and finance leaders should consider several control issues:

• Access: Can the AI retrieve or change information beyond the user's authorized responsibilities?
• Approval: Which actions require a person to review and approve them?
• Audit trails: Can the organization see what information the AI examined and what actions it performed?
• Accuracy: How are incorrect recommendations detected and corrected?
• Segregation of duties: Could automated workflows unintentionally bypass existing financial controls?

These questions should be addressed before AI is permitted to take sensitive financial actions.

What Does This Mean for AP Jobs?

It is too early to determine how Oracle's latest announcements will affect AP staffing levels.

The company has described capabilities intended to reduce manual investigation and coordinate complex work, but the announcements do not establish how much time individual AP departments will save.

What they do suggest is that technology skills, problem-solving and an understanding of financial controls may become increasingly valuable.

AP professionals who understand invoice processing, purchasing relationships, ERP systems and internal controls will be better prepared to evaluate AI-generated recommendations.

Experience still matters when a supplier disputes an invoice, an exception requires judgment or a payment request raises concerns about fraud.

AP Action Points

If your organization is considering AI agents in finance or procurement, start with these five questions.

1. Which problems are we trying to solve? Identify specific tasks, such as researching invoice exceptions or investigating spending patterns.
2. What information can the AI access? Confirm that permissions follow existing security and segregation of duties requirements.
3. Which decisions still need human approval? Define approval boundaries before allowing automated actions.
4. How will we check its work? Require evidence, testing and an audit trail for important financial recommendations.
5. How will we measure success? Track exception resolution time, accuracy, rework and control effectiveness rather than relying only on vendor claims.

The Bigger Picture

Oracle's announcements are another sign that enterprise software companies are giving AI a larger role in everyday business processes.

For accounts payable, the most interesting possibility may be the ability to investigate problems and coordinate work without requiring employees to search through multiple systems manually.

Whether these tools deliver meaningful improvements will depend on implementation, reliable data, appropriate controls and measurable results.

AP professionals should pay close attention as these capabilities develop. Understanding how AI works within financial systems will be an important part of evaluating the next generation of AP automation.

Sources and Further Reading

• Oracle: Advances Outcome-Driven AI Across Fusion Applications (October 26, 2026)
• Oracle: Introduces Claw-Powered Agentic Applications for Supply Chain (October 26, 2026)
• Oracle: Expands Fusion Data Intelligence and AI Capabilities (October 27, 2026)

Editorial note: Product capabilities and availability are based on Oracle's announcements. AP scenarios and potential operational benefits are APPG analysis, not independently verified customer results. The feature image is a conceptual illustration.

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