Electronic payment tampering is generally easier to detect than traditional check tampering. Is this statement true or false?

Electronic payment tampering is generally considered harder to detect than traditional check tampering. The statement is false because electronic transactions often have a level of sophistication and complexity that can obscure fraudulent activities. For instance, fraudulent electronic transactions may involve sophisticated methods such as phishing, hacking, or using malware to manipulate account information, which can go undetected by standard monitoring systems.

In contrast, traditional check tampering, such as altering or forging checks, can be more easily identified through physical examination and controls such as reconciliation and signature verification. The tangible nature of checks allows for a more straightforward audit process, making it simpler to spot inconsistencies or anomalies.

Furthermore, electronic transactions may pass through various channels and automated systems that can mask fraudulent activities, making it necessary for organizations to implement specialized fraud detection systems and techniques to identify such tampering effectively.