+1 (866) 415-2636

Talk To An Agent Today

Payment Fraud in Greece: A 2026 Briefing

Durango Merchant Services · Payments intelligence

Payments Fraud in Greece 2026: Card Fraud Falls as Instant-Transfer Risks Rise

Greece's payments market is changing quickly, though its fraud statistics do not all move in the same direction. Card-fraud incidents fell sharply in the first half of 2026, led by remote transactions, even as the latest annual figures show a near-doubling of fraudulent credit transfers in 2025. The expanding IRIS instant-payment network makes the tension between speed and verification more important than ever.

Greece · Editorial update 29 October 2026 · Bank of Greece, October 2026 edition
−23%Change in fraudulent card transactions (including ATM), H1 2026 versus H1 2025.
+95%Change in fraudulent credit-transfer count, full-year 2025 versus 2024.
85%Approximate CNP share of fraudulent card transactions, H1 2026.
79.5mInterbank IRIS transactions in H1 2026, according to the central bank.
01
Payment market

Greece's Payment Market: Cash Persists, Cards Expand and IRIS Changes the Checkout

The most useful starting point is not whether Greece has gone cashless. It has not. Rather, consumer habits and national payment infrastructure are evolving simultaneously, creating different types of fraud exposure.

The ECB's 2024 SPACE study found that Greece still used cash for 54% of physical point-of-sale transactions by number, against 37% for cards, 5% for mobile apps and 4% for other means. By value the order reverses: cards 47%, cash 42%. This is a survey of consumer payment behavior at physical outlets, not a national total of all online and account-based payments.

At the same time, central-bank payment records show sizable growth in cards. The Bank of Greece's October 2026 Financial Stability Review puts first-half 2026 card transactions at 1.438 billion, up 9% year over year, with total value of €60.0 billion, up 5%. Debit cards remained a substitute for cash in small purchases; the average card transaction declined to roughly €42 from €43 a year earlier.

Greece's instant-payment story is unusually concrete. The domestic DIAS infrastructure has developed IRIS services for person-to-person payments, payments to professionals and commercial checkout. Its 2025 operator statistics report 122.1 million instant transfers, a 72.8% increase, representing 27% of DIAS credit transfers. DIAS also reports 126.4 million IRIS product transactions, including same-bank activity. The Bank of Greece’s narrower interbank IRIS series counted 95.4 million transactions in 2025, up 66%, or 78% of all instant credit transfers. Those counts should not be treated as identical.

For merchants, the distinction is practical. Card authorization, chargeback handling and fraud screening are different from an instant account-to-account collection. A QR code is a payment initiation interface, not evidence that the party receiving the funds has been vetted by the merchant.

How Greece Paid in Person

ECB SPACE · POS transactions · 2024
Cash
54% of POS transactions

Still the single largest payment method by physical transaction count.

Cards
37%

Growing rapidly, including for low-value purchases.

Mobile
5%

Consumer-facing interface; underlying settlement rail may vary.

1.438bnCard transactions, H1 2026.
€60.0bnCard-payment value, H1 2026.
122.1mDIAS instant transfers, 2025.

Survey shares apply only to consumer payments at physical outlets. Card totals, DIAS activity and IRIS product counts have separate measurement populations.

Sources: ECB SPACE 2024 · Bank of Greece, October 2026 · DIAS 2025 statistics.

02
Fraud shape

Fraud by Payment Rail: Cards Dominate Incidents, Transfers Are Far Larger per Case

The 2025 annual payment-system figures allow a matched-period comparison across two major payment rails. Cards still represent most incidents and more value overall—but a fraudulent transfer carries a substantially higher average amount.

For calendar 2025, the Bank of Greece's May 2026 review counted 363,101 fraudulent card transactions worth €22.60 million. Its October 2026 review reported 9,830 fraudulent credit transfers totaling approximately €17 million for the same year. These figures refer to detected and recorded fraudulent payment transactions—not necessarily losses finally borne by victims.

The 2025 card picture was flat value, not decline. The card-fraud count fell 9% from 2024, but the value held at €22.6 million in both years. The channels moved in opposite directions: POS fraud value fell 28%, while remote card-fraud value rose 4%.

Across these two selected payment rails only, cards account for approximately 97.4% of incidents and 57.1% of fraudulent value. Credit transfers represent only 2.6% of incidents but roughly 42.9% of value. The average recorded fraudulent transfer was about €1,730, compared with around €62 for a fraudulent card transaction. These averages are derived from rounded reported values; they are not a typical victim's final loss.

That contrast should not be mistaken for a cross-rail fraud-rate ranking. Banks execute transfers with legitimate average values much greater than everyday card purchases. The Bank of Greece reports a 2025 card fraud-to-transaction ratio of 0.013% by count and 0.019% by value, versus credit-transfer ratios of 0.00129% and 0.00135% respectively. Denominators differ dramatically between rails.

Why these totals are not a national fraud totalThe comparison excludes direct debits, cash withdrawals as an independent rail, e-money and offences outside reported payment transactions. The Bank of Greece card series also includes ATM fraud and is scoped differently from the ECB–EBA issuer-side series (398,723 Bank of Greece cases in 2024 versus 211,974 ECB–EBA fraudulent payments on Greek-issued cards), so the two should not be mixed. None of these figures should be added to police criminal-case statistics or surveys of scam victims.

2025 Fraud Distribution Across Cards and Transfers

Same year, two payment rails. Blue represents cards and orange represents credit transfers. The charts independently normalize incidents and euro value.

Share of reported fraud incidents372,931 combined
Cards 97.4%Transfers 2.6%
Share of recorded fraudulent valueApproximately €39.6m combined
Cards €22.6mTransfers ~€17m
RailFraud countFraud value
Cards363,101€22.60m
Credit transfers9,830~€17.0m

Relative percentages use the two listed rails, not all payment instruments. Card figures include ATM fraud. Transfer euro value is rounded by the Bank of Greece.

Sources: Bank of Greece, May 2026 · Bank of Greece, October 2026.

03
What changed

Greece's 2026 Fraud Divergence: Card Incidents Fall, Transfer Fraud Had Surged

The key development is not a universal decline or a universal surge. It is a widening contrast between the defenses applied to cards and the pressures created by instant account-to-account payments.

2025 transfer fraud+95%

9,830 fraudulent transfers, up from 5,032 in 2024; fraudulent value up 41% to about €17m.

H1 2026 card fraud−23%

154,186 fraudulent card transactions against 199,742 in H1 2025.

H1 2026 card value−14%

€10.62m fraudulent value, down from €12.28m in H1 2025.

Bank of Greece data released in October 2026 show 154,186 fraudulent card transactions in H1 2026, a year-on-year decline of 23%, even as overall card payments grew by 9%. In euro terms, recorded fraudulent card-transaction value fell 14% to €10.6 million. The denominator matters: fewer fraudulent transactions against more legitimate transactions also lowers the fraud incidence rate.

Remote card-not-present (CNP) transactions still account for most reported card fraud: 130,898 of the 154,186 incidents, or approximately 85%. POS terminals accounted for 21,180 events, while ATMs accounted for 2,108. The central bank states that most remote fraud occurred online. CNP incidents fell 26%, faster than the total. That decline is recent: in 2025, remote card-fraud value still rose 4% even as incident counts fell. Their continued dominance means remote checkout requires the most deliberate screening.

By contrast, full-year 2025 credit-transfer fraud had nearly doubled in count and risen 41% in value compared with 2024. The central bank associates this increase primarily with the expansion of instant transfers and their short execution and recall window, alongside social engineering and authorized push-payment (APP) scams. It also notes that verification of payee was not yet operating through September 2025. Those are explanatory factors identified by the central bank; they are not a controlled causal estimate.

Another distinction concerns losses actually allocated to parties. In H1 2026, €9.6 million in losses arising from card fraud were allocated across cardholders, acquirers and issuers, down 16% from €11.5 million a year earlier and less than the €10.6 million face value of fraudulent card transactions. The Bank of Greece assigns 62% to cardholders or users, 30% to accepting payment-service providers and 8% to issuers, according to its reported allocation. A card-fraud amount is not automatically a cardholder's out-of-pocket loss.

H1 2026 Fraudulent Card Transactions by Channel

Remote / CNP
130,898
POS
21,180
ATMs
2,108

Each bar represents that channel's percentage of the total 154,186 fraudulent card transactions; it does not represent the probability of fraud within that channel.

62%H1 2026 card-fraud losses allocated to cardholders/users.
30%Allocated to acquiring payment service providers.
8%Allocated to issuers.

Source: Bank of Greece, Financial Stability Review, October 2026, pp. 93–96.

04
Fraud demographics

Who Suffers Online Fraud in Greece? Separate the Greek Outcome from EU Age Patterns

Age-based payment-fraud claims are easy to overstate. The strongest comparable survey offers a Greece-specific lifetime fraud-experience measure, but its public results do not give validated Greek age-by-age loss rates.

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) survey published in May 2026 asked respondents whether they had ever been tricked through email or instant messaging into making payments, transferring money or disclosing personal information. Greece had a reported 11% lifetime victim-experience rate, compared with 24% across the EU. The sample comprised 26,453 respondents EU-wide. This outcome covers more than financial loss: someone tricked into disclosing data also qualifies.

The age information in that FRA publication is EU-wide, not a Greece-only cross-tab. Across the EU, 30% of respondents aged 25–39 reported experiencing the specified online fraud, while the reported rate among people aged 55 and older was 19%. The report observes that older respondents have lower use of the email and messaging channels in scope, which partly affects the raw differences. It would be incorrect to assign 30% or 19% to Greek residents of those ages.

A separate Greek survey by the research institute of the Hellenic Confederation of Commerce and Entrepreneurship (ΕΣΕΕ) for Visa, reported by Enikonomia and Capital.gr in November 2025, adds a direct money-loss measure: two in ten of those who had fallen victim to online fraud lost money. Of those, 33% lost up to €50, 30% lost €50–199, 12% lost €200–499 and 16% lost more than €500. The same survey found that 56% of respondents continue to shop online as before, rising to 74% among people aged 17–24. Those shopping figures describe behavior, not fraud-loss incidence by age.

The defensible inference for merchants is that fraud affects acquisition and retention as well as immediate payment security. A victim who has been tricked may stop buying from unfamiliar sellers, become more sensitive to authentication interruptions or demand clearer return procedures. The data do not justify labeling Greek seniors or Greek teenagers as the most financially vulnerable group.

Human Evidence, With Its Boundaries

11%Greece: lifetime reported online fraud experience

FRA 2026; deceptive email or instant messages leading to payments, transfers or sharing information. Not necessarily monetary loss.

24%EU-27: same FRA survey measure

Comparable questionnaire and reporting frame. Describes EU-wide respondents, not a Greece-only benchmark by age.

30%Age 25–39: EU-wide online fraud experience

EU-wide age group, not Greek cohort prevalence. Older (55+) group was 19% in the same report.

2 in 10Greek online-fraud victims who lost money

Visa/ΕΣΕΕ survey reported November 2025. Of those who lost money, 16% lost more than €500.

74%Greek respondents aged 17–24 still shopping online as before

Same Visa/ΕΣΕΕ survey. Shopping behavior—not a fraud or money-loss rate.

Data-quality decision: no Greece-specific fraud-by-age bar chart without an age-specific outcome and denominator. No qualitative age finding is relabeled as a monetary-loss statistic.

Sources: FRA, 2026 · Visa/ΕΣΕΕ survey, November 2025, reported by Enikonomia and Capital.gr.

05
Mechanisms

Five Fraud Routes in Greece: Fake Commerce, Borrowed Authority and Misled Payers

The central bank's findings and survey evidence point to overlapping attacks on payment credentials, consumer trust and the process of choosing a beneficiary. These are illustrative mechanisms, not a ranked national incident list.

01 · Commerce

Counterfeit Online Stores and Deceptive Checkout

A convincing storefront or social advertisement presents goods that are not delivered, or uses a false payment page to capture credentials. Greece's high remote-card fraud count and survey references to fictitious sellers make verified merchant identity a practical issue. Legitimate ecommerce and outright fake shops should not be equated.

Control point3-D Secure 2, device/velocity screening, recognizable billing descriptors, clear refund terms and documented delivery.
02 · Bank

Bank and Government Impersonation by SMS

Phishing texts can imitate an institution, imply urgent account problems or invent eligibility for a benefit. The Bank of Greece highlights warnings from the Greek tax authority AADE about deceptive benefit messages. A genuine login session does not prove that the message prompting it was legitimate.

Control pointNavigate independently to known sites; no login or payment links from unsolicited messages; customer alerts for abnormal account activity.
03 · Voice

Caller-ID Spoofing and False Instructions

Attackers can make a call appear to originate from a trusted bank or organization and create an emergency that presses victims to disclose secrets or transfer money. The central bank refers to Greek telecom and banking-industry cooperation against spoofed calls. The caller's displayed number should not carry proof of identity.

Control pointIndependent callback to verified numbers, two-person review for unfamiliar beneficiaries and anti-spoofing escalation channels.
04 · Transfers

Authorized Push-Payment and Supplier-Account Redirection

In social-engineering fraud, the real payer approves a payment to a fraudulent beneficiary. Supplier impersonation and invoice diversion can produce the same outcome for a business, particularly when bank details are changed just before settlement. An authentication step may validate the user while missing the deception.

Control pointVerification of payee, independent beneficiary-change confirmation, dual approval and anomaly monitoring before release.
05 · Investment

Fake Investments and Remote-Access Manipulation

Scammers promise extraordinary returns and move a lead from an ad to a supposed broker, wallet or payment instruction. Greek authorities have publicized investment-fraud enforcement cases, and the central bank references that activity. These attacks should be treated as a distinct criminal mechanism, not as ordinary chargebacks against legitimate investment merchants.

Control pointVerify regulatory authorization, avoid remote-control instructions from strangers, review unusual payees and use incident-response procedures.

Sources: Bank of Greece, May 2026 · Bank of Greece, October 2026 · AADE payment guidance · ECB/EBA 2025 payment-fraud report.

06
Controls and regulation

From Strong Authentication to Verified Beneficiaries: Greece's Regulatory Reset

The euro-area instant-payment regime is already operational. Greece has added a national requirement for businesses to accept account-to-account payments, making pre-settlement verification and clean checkout integration more consequential.

01 · Authentication

3-D Secure and SCA

Apply strong customer authentication and risk-based controls to remote cards, while recognizing that a manipulated payer can still authenticate genuinely.

02 · Beneficiary

Verification of Payee

Show payer name/IBAN matching results before authorization. A warning helps detect redirection, but does not establish that an entire transaction is safe.

03 · IRIS

Checkout Integrity

Use a properly integrated IRIS payment option and verify settlement and references server-side before fulfilling orders.

04 · Response

Incident Escalation

Notify the payment provider promptly; preserve instructions, timestamps, identifiers, and account-change evidence.

Under Regulation (EU) 2024/886, euro-area payment service providers generally had to be able to receive euro instant transfers by 9 January 2025 and send them by 9 October 2025, subject to the regulation's scope and exceptions. The accompanying verification-of-payee requirement seeks to warn users when a recipient name does not match the account identifier before payment authorization.

Greece's local rollout went further for merchants. The Independent Authority for Public Revenue (AADE) states that from 1 December 2025, acceptance of account-to-account instant payments such as IRIS was mandatory for business-to-consumer transactions, with technical acceptance routes through POS equipment or electronic invoicing service providers. The rule addresses availability and integration of the payment method, not a guarantee against fraud.

The Bank of Greece reports 79.5 million IRIS interbank transactions in H1 2026, up 54% from 51.6 million in H2 2025. Most were person-to-person transfers. An increasingly familiar payment rail can be convenient for legitimate customers and criminals alike; faster settlement means there is less time to reverse an erroneous destination.

The bank's 2025 fraud analysis attributes 64% of fraudulent transfer cases to payment orders issued by the fraudster after obtaining sensitive data, and 36% to manipulation of the legitimate payer. This refers to the bank's classified transfer-fraud incidents, not the entire universe of Greek scams, and should not be compared directly with the EBA's EU-wide classifications.

On 30 June 2026, DIAS connected IRIS to the EuroPA alliance, linking it with Bizum in Spain, MB WAY in Portugal and BANCOMAT Pay in Italy. The first phase covers person-to-person transfers by mobile number only; business and retail interoperability is a 2027 objective. Cross-border IRIS checkout is therefore planned rather than live, but the direction strengthens the case for clear receiving-merchant identity, carefully documented beneficiary changes and transparent customer confirmation.

Controls and Milestones

Legal and operational milestones
Jan 2025
Euro instant transfers receivable

General deadline for in-scope euro-area providers.

Oct 2025
Euro instant sending and payee checks

General 9 October deadline for relevant providers and verification of payee.

Dec 2025
IRIS B2C acceptance required

AADE identifies 1 December as the start of the Greek merchant obligation.

H1 2026
79.5m interbank IRIS transactions

Bank of Greece reporting, up 54% versus H2 2025.

EU deadline scope and institution-level exemptions should be checked for individual providers. Merchants should also verify current AADE implementation requirements with their provider.

Sources: Regulation (EU) 2024/886 · AADE · Bank of Greece, October 2026.

07
Merchant playbook

Payment Fraud Controls for Greek Merchants: Protect the Checkout and the Beneficiary

Fraud exposure depends on which payment rail the merchant accepts, how the sale is fulfilled, and whether funds can be redirected after the buyer authorizes a transaction.

Card-Present Retail

Priority: Maintain compliant POS terminals, secure staff procedures, transaction confirmations and prompt reconciliation. Ordinary in-store fraud should be evaluated against POS-specific evidence, not national remote-card totals.

Online Card Sales

Priority: Use 3-D Secure, velocity and device screening, delivery evidence, straightforward refund policies and a documented chargeback prevention and response. Remote fraud still dominates the card-fraud count.

IRIS and QR Checkout

Priority: Confirm amounts, merchant identifiers and references automatically; match bank settlement to the order before delivery. A payment screenshot is not a replacement for verified settlement status.

Supplier Transfers

Priority: Check new or altered beneficiary details through a known, separate channel; apply two-person approval at appropriate thresholds; use verification-of-payee alerts as one signal, not the sole control.

Tourism and Cross-Border Sales

Priority: Monitor remote bookings, delayed fulfillment, cancellations, exchange-rate disclosures and card-not-present disputes. Separate guest-initiated payments from business supplier transfers.

Higher-Risk or Recurring Models

Priority: Present underwriters with actual billing cycles, fulfillment timing, refund and dispute history, processing volumes, and safeguards when seeking high-risk merchant processing.

Greece's fraud data reward a two-layer strategy: authenticate the buyer in card payments, but verify the beneficiary and transaction intent before an instant transfer becomes difficult to retrieve.

Durango Merchant Services

Secure Payment Processing for Greek and Cross-Border Merchants

A merchant's underwriting and fraud requirements depend on whether it accepts card-present, remote or recurring transactions, how it delivers products or services, the volume and value of sales, its dispute history and the countries involved. Durango Merchant Services helps evaluate these factors, identify documentation concerns and prepare for secure merchant-account processing.

Scroll to Top