Summary record of the first session of the Fair Play Council

Session details

Proceedings

1. The Fair Play Council held its first session on 16 February 2026 in two Open Table sittings. The Asia-Pacific sitting began at 06:00 UTC and the Europe/Africa/Americas sitting began at 16:00 UTC. The sittings formed part of one session and considered the same agenda. The chair opened each sitting by welcoming members, explaining that the purpose was to begin the Council’s evidence-gathering work, and distinguishing discussion at an Open Table from a formal finding by the Council.

2. The chair recalled that the Council’s call for evidence on agenda item FP-001 had been issued as RC/FP/2026/1 on 10 February 2026. He invited members to identify the kinds of payment-fraud problems that small businesses should be able to report, and to consider what information would allow the Council to test whether a problem was recurring and sufficiently evidenced. He emphasized that this session was an initial discussion, not an adoption of a standard or a conclusion about any payment provider.

3. The record of Council membership at the date showed 10 members from 10 countries. Across Reseated, 45 members were seated in 29 countries and 57 reports had been filed from 21 countries. The Fair Play Council had received no reports from any country as of 16 February. The chair noted that this meant the Council had no case material on which to make findings, and asked members not to describe the absence of reports as evidence that the issue did not occur.

4. In the Asia-Pacific sitting, Meera Nair of Kochi, India, said that the call for evidence should make it possible for a member to describe a suspected fraud without first knowing whether the incident had been caused by a bank, a payment provider, or another party. She recommended that the intake ask for a clear sequence of events, including what the member was told before sending a payment and what happened after the member raised an alert. Her remarks were offered as guidance for future submissions and were not entered as a report.

5. Kojo Mensah of Accra, Ghana, said members may need to explain how an urgent request was received, for instance through a changed invoice or a message appearing to come from a familiar contact. He proposed that the intake distinguish what the member personally observed from what the member later inferred. He also asked that the process accept evidence in stages, because a small business may not have all relevant records to hand when first reporting an incident. The chair recorded this as a proposed design consideration.

6. Nur Aisyah Rahman of Bandung, Indonesia, emphasized that the process should not require members to publish their names or identify their own businesses. She suggested that submissions use a stable confidential reference so that additional documents could be connected to an initial report without disclosing a member’s identity in public discussion. She also cautioned that cases used in Council materials should describe the type of actor involved, such as “a payment provider” or “a supplier”, rather than name a business or individual.

7. In the Europe/Africa/Americas sitting, Elena Petrova of Plovdiv, Bulgaria, supported a structured account of the timing of an incident. She said that a report should make clear when a payment was authorized, when the member first contacted a provider, and whether the member received a decision or explanation. She considered that a short chronology could help the Council compare reports without asking members to provide unnecessary personal or commercial information. Her contribution was recorded as a proposal for the intake form, not as an account of a specific incident.

8. Rafael Costa of Recife, Brazil, said that a process designed only around domestic transfers might miss problems experienced by businesses making or receiving cross-border payments. He proposed that the intake ask whether a payment crossed a national boundary and, if the member knew, which currencies or payment stages were involved. He cautioned that a member should be able to answer “unknown” rather than be required to determine how a payment was routed. The chair noted that the Council had not yet settled the scope of FP-001 and that this point would be considered during evidence gathering.

9. Chinwe Okafor of Enugu, Nigeria, asked that members be invited to submit both resolved and unresolved cases. In her view, a case that had been recovered or corrected could still help the Council understand how an alert was handled, while an unresolved case could illuminate delays or gaps in communication. She recommended that the reporting guidance avoid implying that a member must prove wrongdoing before submitting an account. The chair agreed that reports should be treated as evidence to assess, not as findings already established.

10. Daniela Rojas of Valparaíso, Chile, raised the importance of recording the amount at stake while allowing a member to state a range or mark the amount as uncertain where exact figures were not available. She said that the form should not assume that a smaller loss was immaterial to a small business. She also proposed asking whether the member’s operations were interrupted, while leaving the member free to describe that effect in their own words. The proposal was referred for consideration when the evidence template is prepared.

11. Hanae Sato of Sapporo, Japan, said that the Council should avoid treating similar wording in reports as proof that separate incidents shared a cause. She proposed that the evidence review record both common features and differences, including the channel used, the timing, and the response received. She further recommended that any later public summary explain what was known, what remained uncertain, and how the Council reached its assessment. The chair noted that these safeguards were consistent with the Council’s need to distinguish individual accounts from a demonstrated pattern.

12. James Mwangi of Nakuru, Kenya, asked how members would know whether their submissions had been received and whether further information was needed. He recommended a simple acknowledgement process that would not imply that a submission had been verified or accepted as a formal finding. He also asked that members be told how identifying details would be handled before they submitted documents. The chair recorded receipt, confidentiality, and clear status notices as matters for the intake process.

13. During both sittings, the chair reminded members that the Council’s task at this stage was to collect and compare reports, not to assign liability or make claims about named companies. Members were asked to use general descriptions of institutions and counterparties in any public discussion and to avoid including their own business names in material intended for publication. The chair said that any material containing sensitive details should be handled through the designated submission process rather than read aloud at an Open Table.

14. The discussion identified several possible elements for an evidence intake: a concise chronology; the nature and channel of the payment request; whether the payment was domestic or cross-border, if known; the amount at stake, including uncertainty where relevant; the member’s contact with the relevant provider; the response and timing; and any operational effect. Members also supported separating observations from inferences, allowing supplemental information, and protecting member identity. These were recorded as proposals for further work. They were not adopted as a completed form or as substantive requirements of a future standard.

15. The chair stated that the Council would need to assess any eventual body of evidence against the five-part pattern test used by Reseated: Volume, Frequency, Consistency, Spread, and Corroboration. He clarified that the session did not apply or pass that test. With no Fair Play reports filed by the date, the Council had no basis to assess the volume, frequency, consistency, spread, or corroboration of any alleged practice. Members were invited to submit reports under the call for evidence so that the Council could consider the matter on an evidentiary basis.

16. On procedure, members agreed that the Council should keep a distinction between (a) an initial report, (b) follow-up material supplied by the reporting member, and (c) any later analysis produced by the Council. The distinction was intended to preserve the context of the original account and make later comparisons more transparent. Members further supported recording when a submission was incomplete or when a detail could not be independently confirmed, rather than silently treating it as established. No decision was taken on a specific verification protocol.

17. The chair summarized the discussion as an initial framework for collecting usable evidence while protecting members from unnecessary disclosure. He stressed that members could submit accounts even if they were unsure which institution or process was responsible for the outcome. The Council would review the material received, identify recurring features if the evidence supported doing so, and return to members before preparing any proposed remedy. He stated that no recommendation to a company, public authority, or other institution was before the session.

18. At the close of each sitting, the chair invited corrections to the summary of the discussion and reiterated that no member’s illustrative comments should be treated as a filed report. No formal standard, opinion, or external letter was adopted or authorized. The only immediate outcome was agreement to continue the call for evidence and to develop practical guidance for submitting reports. The Council would report back after members had had an opportunity to contribute evidence.

Decisions and action items

1. Evidence gathering. The Council will continue to invite submissions under RC/FP/2026/1. Members who have relevant information may submit it through the Council’s reporting process. Owner: Fair Play Council members.

2. Intake guidance. Chukwudi Umeh will consolidate the proposals made at both sittings into a working list for the Council’s consideration. The list will cover chronology, observed facts and inferences, payment context, amount and uncertainty, provider contact and response, operational effect, supplemental records, and confidentiality. It will remain a working document and will not be presented as an adopted standard. Owner: Chukwudi Umeh, Chair.

3. Submission handling. The Secretariat will maintain the distinction between received reports, follow-up material, and Council analysis, and will provide members with clear information about submission status and handling of identifying details. Owner: Founding Secretariat, in coordination with the Chair.

4. Pattern assessment. The Council will not make a pattern finding until it has received evidence and has considered it under the five-part pattern test. Owner: Fair Play Council.

5. Record of the session. The Chair will circulate this summary record for publication as RC/FP/2026/SR.1. Owner: Chukwudi Umeh, Chair.

Next session

The Council’s next session is expected to take place in March 2026, in keeping with the monthly Open Table schedule. The exact date and sitting arrangements were not fixed at this session and will be notified separately. Members were encouraged to submit evidence in advance where practicable, while retaining the option to provide additional information later.

Closing

The chair closed the session by thanking members for their contributions and restating that the Council would proceed from documented evidence. The record reflects the discussion and procedural understandings of the first Fair Play Council session as of 16 February 2026. It does not constitute a finding that any specific fraud practice occurred or that any named institution was responsible.