--- title: "Does the organization send and/or receive wire transfers?" url: https://insuranceposture.com/questions/business-profile/organization-send-receive-wire-transfers category: "Business and financial profile" canonical_key: q_fin_009 evidence_state: attested updated: 2026-08-24 --- # Does the organization send and/or receive wire transfers? URL: https://insuranceposture.com/questions/business-profile/organization-send-receive-wire-transfers Section: Business and financial profile Evidence state: Attested, not tenant-verifiable A yes here opens the funds transfer fraud conversation, including the conditions that cover usually carries. ## What the carrier is actually asking The carrier is asking whether the organisation sends or receives wire transfers, and often the volume and typical value. It determines whether funds transfer fraud cover is relevant and how it should be structured. ## Why it is underwritten Funds transfer fraud is the highest-frequency cyber claim. Carriers price the cover against transfer activity and commonly condition it on verification procedures, which is why this question and the dual authorisation question are read together. ## Where the answer lives in Microsoft 365, Entra ID, and Azure Transfer activity comes from finance records, and the controls around it are what the carrier is really assessing. | Platform | Where the setting lives | What has to be true | | --- | --- | --- | | Finance | Transfer volume and typical and maximum values | Figures that support an appropriate sub-limit. Attested | | Finance | Authorisation controls in the banking platform | Dual authorisation enforced by the platform above a threshold | | Finance | Callback verification procedure for new or changed details | Verification to a number already on file, applied without exception | | Banking | Access to banking platforms and its authentication | Multi-factor on every banking credential, ideally on a dedicated device | | Microsoft 365 | Protection of finance mailboxes | Forwarding blocked, impersonation protection configured, and external tagging enabled | **Cover is often conditioned on the procedure** Funds transfer fraud cover frequently requires that verification procedures were followed. A loss that occurred because someone skipped the callback under time pressure may fall outside cover. That makes the procedure both a control and a coverage condition, which is worth telling the finance team explicitly. ## What a defensible yes requires - Transfer activity is quantified so the sub-limit is appropriate. - Dual authorisation is enforced by the banking platform. - Callback verification is unconditional. - Banking access requires strong multi-factor, ideally from a dedicated device. - Finance mailboxes are hardened against forwarding and impersonation. ## How this answer goes wrong The answer is yes and the procedures described are policy rather than platform-enforced, so a determined social engineering attempt under urgency succeeds. The subsequent claim then turns on whether the verification condition in the policy was met. ## If this answer turns out to be wrong Revenue and record counts are the rating base, so a misstatement here is material as arithmetic, and it is the category where insurers have historically reached for rescission. Whether anything follows from an inaccuracy depends on materiality, on the policy wording, and on the law of the governing state: [how rescission voids a policy from inception](https://insuranceposture.com/glossary/rescission). The other consequence terms are collected in the [glossary](https://insuranceposture.com/glossary). ## Frequently asked ### Is funds transfer fraud covered automatically? Usually as a sub-limited extension rather than at the full policy limit, and frequently with conditions. Read the sub-limit against your typical transfer value. ### What sub-limit should we buy? At least the largest single transfer you would make, and preferably more. The common shortfall is a sub-limit far below the transfer sizes the business routinely handles. ### Does this cover client funds? Depends on the wording. If you hold or move client money, raise it explicitly, because the cover may not extend there. ### What if we only receive transfers? Lower exposure and not zero. Attackers impersonate you to redirect incoming payments, which harms your customers and your relationship with them. ## Related questions - [Are wire transfers over $25K dual-control authorized? Is callback verification required for new vendor / banking change?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/governance-and-workforce/wire-transfers-over-25k-dual-control-authorized-callback-verification) - [Are employees with financial/accounting responsibility given social engineering and phishing training?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/email-security/employees-financial-accounting-responsibility-given-social-engineering-phishing-training) - [Are external emails tagged as originating from an external source?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/email-security/external-emails-tagged-as-originating-from-external-source) - [In last 3 years, any cyber event, claim, loss, security breach, or extortion demand?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/incident-response/last-3-years-cyber-event-claim-loss-security-breach) --- Insurance Posture by SecValley. https://insuranceposture.com The question library is written in our own wording to reflect the control topics that recur across US cyber application and ransomware supplemental forms. No carrier form is republished. SecValley is not a law firm, an insurance broker, an agent, or a carrier, and holds no producer licence. Nothing here is insurance advice, legal advice, or a coverage determination, and no attorney-client relationship arises from reading it. Statements about what a party to a cited case did, knew, or intended are allegations drawn from court filings and contemporaneous reporting, not findings of fact. Your organization's authorized signer remains responsible for the accuracy of any application. Consult a licensed broker and qualified counsel before binding.