> Given that these direct debit agreements are revokable at any point in time, I doubt the claims of very high fraud rate. I think the claim is that because SE

> Given that these direct debit agreements are revokable at any point in time, I doubt the claims of very high fraud rate. I think the claim is that because SEPA direct debits can be revoked within a very long window after settlement, it's more common that payments are revoked after goods/services have been provided (leaving businesses holding the bag). Whether this fits the precise definition of fraud I'm not sure, the payment was valid and successful, but later reversed. It would be a more interesting claim if there were some empirical comparisons included, but it certainly matches my experience. Edited to add: another common form of fraud is somebody providing legitimate bank details of an unwitting victim. At least for some banks in Germany, the bank does not actually enforce authorisation from the account holder when a new direct debit mandate is introduced. The fraudster receives goods/services for free as long as the victim doesn't notice the charges.