Not necessarily - payment processors are still concerned about delayed fraud claims. Not all "fraud" is "it wasn't the cardpayer who authorized this transaction

Not necessarily - payment processors are still concerned about delayed fraud claims. Not all "fraud" is "it wasn't the cardpayer who authorized this transaction". The risk team is also thinking about the likelihood of chargebacks - certain industries or sectors see far higher chargeback rates than others, and therefore many processors will refuse to deal with them. Other areas of heightened risk of fraud could be non-delivery of goods (physical item never arrives, resulting in claim via card issuer), defective goods or not-as-described (merchant is just box shifting crap they've never actually seen, and complaints will arrive), or insolvency of the provider. There have been cases in travel and hospitality where processors put 6 month cashflow halts on funds, to manage the perceived risk of non-delivery. This can in itself be enough to bankrupt the company relying on the processor! (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyglobespan#Financial_difficulties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flyglobespan#Financial_difficu... for an example in the UK affecting an airline, where the card processor placed a halt, but had actually spent or otherwise exappropriated the funds)