This article provides general information, not legal, regulatory or financial advice. Requirements depend on the applicable contract, authority and jurisdiction.
Overview
The FBI's business email compromise guidance describes requests that appear to come from known sources and advises verification of changes in account numbers or payment procedures. In a shipping workflow, that principle should be applied through the organization's established accounts and verification process before reliance on the instruction.
Key takeaways
- Separate the obligation to pay from the destination of the payment.
- Identify the intended payee and its relationship to the invoice.
- Preserve the instruction's source and any change from the accepted details.
- Use an independently established verification route under the organization's process.
- Keep release authority distinct from document collection and checking.
Start with the commercial obligation
Identify the invoice or other payment request, the contractual relationship and the party expected to receive payment. Record what the accounts team has established about the amount and status. The coordinator should not infer that an invoice is payable merely because the payment details are complete.
Conversely, an accepted invoice does not settle the payment destination question. Keep the evidence for the commercial obligation separate from the evidence supporting the account instruction. This makes it easier to recognize when only one part of the process is complete.
If the proposed recipient differs from the invoicing or contracting entity, identify the explanation required. A legitimate arrangement may exist, but its commercial, legal and compliance implications need the appropriate review. Do not treat the difference as either automatically fraudulent or automatically harmless.
Identify the instruction and its provenance
Preserve the actual message or document supplying the details, its sender and the route by which it reached the team. If a broker or agent forwards the instruction, record that relationship. Forwarding a message is different from confirming the underlying payee's authority and intent.
Compare the request with the accepted information in the organization's process. A changed account, recipient, currency arrangement or payment procedure should be visible as a change, not overwritten into the master record before review. Keep the prior instruction identifiable where the applicable policy requires it.
Record urgency claims as part of the request rather than as a reason to bypass verification. A vessel schedule, overdue invoice or senior person's apparent involvement can explain commercial pressure without establishing authenticity or release authority.
Establish the intended payee relationship
Ask which entity will receive the funds and why it is the appropriate recipient for the obligation. The answer should connect the account instruction to the actual transaction. Group affiliation or a familiar brand may be relevant background, but it does not fully describe the receiving entity's role.
Where another party is proposed to collect payment, obtain the evidence and review required by the organization's process. Keep the question about that arrangement separate from the technical accuracy of the account fields. Correctly typed details can still describe a recipient whose role has not been accepted.
Check the current text and seek the appropriate advice where assignment, agency, sanctions or other legal questions arise. The collection sheet should prepare the facts, not determine that payment to a particular account discharges an obligation.
Build a payment-evidence checklist
The following checklist is an original workflow design. It should be adapted to the organization's approved payment process and bank requirements.
- Identify the obligation, invoice reference, amount status and relevant commercial parties.
- Preserve the original instruction and identify how it reached the team.
- Record the intended recipient and the explanation for any difference from the invoicing entity.
- Identify changes from previously accepted details without replacing the old record prematurely.
- Route verification through the established process, using contact information independent of the unverified request.
- Record the specific details and authority confirmed, including any unresolved limitation.
- Obtain the required internal release approval separately from completion of the evidence collection.
Each step should answer a question. A checklist completed with attachments but no clear conclusion about their relevance can create an appearance of control without a reliable basis for payment.
Keep verification specific
A conversation with a familiar person should establish the facts the process requires. Record what was actually confirmed: the payment request, recipient relationship, account change or authority to issue the instruction. Do not replace that detail with a vague note saying called and checked.
The verification route should be established independently of the request being tested. A phone number or alternate email supplied only in the disputed message does not provide the same independence. Use the organization's approved records and process, escalating uncertainty about the contact route itself.
Keep sensitive account information within the appropriate access arrangements. The commercial desk can record status and references without distributing the full payment evidence pack to every participant in a voyage discussion.
Fictional case: the correct invoice has new account details
In a fictional agency payment, accounts recognizes the invoice and confirms that its commercial amount matches the accepted service record. An email then supplies different payment details, quoting the genuine invoice reference and explaining that the change will avoid delay.
The coordinator treats the invoice and instruction as separate questions. The invoice's validity is not disputed merely because the new details need verification. The changed destination is referred through the established accounts process, and the original message is preserved.
The team uses its independent contact route to establish the intended instruction and recipient relationship. If the answer remains unclear, the release decision remains with the authorized accounts or principal role. The desk does not update the supplier record simply because the message contains accurate voyage information.
The case illustrates why correct commercial context can coexist with an unverified payment instruction. Recognizing the debt is an important step, but it is not the final step in deciding where and under whose authority funds should be sent.
Hand over a clear payment status
The status should distinguish commercial approval, instruction verification and release authorization. If one remains pending, identify the exact question and owner. Avoid a broad payment approved label when the team has only checked the invoice amount.
If the recipient or instruction changes after verification, compare the new request with the scope of the completed check. A prior confirmation should not silently extend to different details. Follow the appropriate change process before relying on the revised instruction.
Preserve the evidence relationship so a later reviewer can understand which instruction was verified and which payment was authorized. The record should support the actual release decision without implying a wider guarantee about every future request from the same counterparty.
Common mistakes
One mistake is treating an accurate invoice reference as proof of authentic payment details. It establishes relevance to the transaction, not necessarily the source or authority of the instruction.
Another is calling a number supplied only in the message being verified. Use the independently established route required by the organization's process and escalate if that route cannot be confirmed.
A third is allowing a completed verification note to replace release approval. The people checking evidence and the people authorizing funds should follow their assigned roles and authority.
Where Zeaclub fits
Zeaclub supports agentic, AI-assisted operations with a human in control.
Zeaclub provides a multi-party shared workspace for owners, charterers, brokers and port agents.
Explore Zeaclub
Educational information only; not legal, financial or trading advice. Contract wording and applicable rules control. Verify current requirements and obtain qualified advice before acting.
Frequently asked questions
Does a familiar sender make the instruction reliable?
Familiarity is context, not a complete verification process. Follow the organization's checks, especially for changed payment details or procedures. Preserve what was confirmed and through which independently established route.
What if the payee differs from the invoicing company?
Obtain the explanation and evidence required to assess the arrangement. Refer relevant commercial, legal and compliance questions appropriately. Do not infer that the difference is fraudulent or that it is acceptable simply because the entities are related.
Should a broker hold the bank details for everyone?
Use the approved payment workflow and access rules. The broker may coordinate information within its role, but sensitive details and release authority should remain with the designated parties rather than being distributed broadly for convenience.
What if the invoice is due before verification finishes?
Explain the timing and unresolved question to the authorized decision maker. Commercial urgency does not establish the instruction's authenticity. Obtain direction under the applicable process instead of silently treating the pending check as complete.