After the creation of a dispute button to report suspected fraud on Pix, requests for return of funds exploded, but reimbursement of embezzled sums remains less than 10%, according to data from the Central Bank (CB). Figures show that the majority of claims are rejected by banks, a percentage that has increased with the creation of the button to facilitate user claims.
- Interview: Haddad confirms that he can leave the Treasury and says he “intends to collaborate with Lula’s campaign”
- With a new minimum wage: The PIS/Pasep in 2026 will be between R$135 and R$1,621; check on calculator
From January to August this year, on average, 1.3 million Pix operations were challenged per month. This number increased to 3.5 million in October, when the dispute button began working, an increase of 169%. In November, there were 3.4 million requests.
The share of accepted applications varied from 26% on average for the first eight months of 2025 (338 thousand) to 12% in October (422 thousand) and 9% in November (297 thousand). The percentage of resources returned, meanwhile, remained at 9.2% on average from January to August (BRL 56 million) and October (BRL 70.3 million), but fell to 7.1% in November (BRL 62.8 million).
- Executive decree: Trump announces single national regulations for AI
Special return mechanism
Data from the Special Return Mechanism (SRM) was presented to market participants and civil society associations at the Pix Forum last week. MED was created in 2021 to facilitate the return of monies misappropriated due to scams, fraud, coercion or operational failures at Pix.
With the button, customers no longer need to interact with bank or fintech employees to notify them that they have been victims of fraud and request compensation. The goal is to make litigation easier and speed up the process. For the BC, the changes increase the chances that there will still be resources in the fraudster’s account to allow the return to the victim.
- Simplified process: Anac approves the rapid tender notice for Galeão airport
However, the first figures do not confirm this expectation. Insufficient balance is the main justification for fraudulent operations where funds are not returned to victims, with a percentage hovering around 80% both before the change and in the following months.
However, we expect positive developments with the new version of the MED, which allows you to “continue” the path of money, the use of which has been optional since the end of last month and will be compulsory in February 2026.
Until now, the tool only allowed access to the first account receiving fraudulent funds, while the criminals dispersed the sums quickly, with the agility allowed by Pix.
According to the BC, the increase in the number of requests was expected due to the greater visibility given to the MED and it is necessary to continue monitoring the figures to more appropriately assess the causes of the variation.
- Education: Bukele and Musk reach agreement to use AI Grok in public schools in El Salvador
“Assessing the existence of fraud or scams in the event of disputes is the responsibility of the participants, who are responsible for knowing their clients and the typicality of their transactions. The BC continually evaluates the processes and conduct adopted by authorized institutions and constantly seeks to improve its instruments,” he said in a note.
The PO monitors the process to assess possible travel adjustments. The regulator also sent a questionnaire to check banks’ compliance with Pix regulations regarding fraud and the use of MED. At the same time, the regulator is preparing the creation of a fraud probability indicator for next year.
Viviane Fernandes, researcher at the Consumer Protection Institute (Idec), says she looks forward to this improvement in the system, but emphasizes that the results must reach consumers who are victims of scams and fraud.
- Investigation: STF cancels the Mato Grosso law which suspended charges on loans granted to employees
— Unfortunately, the recovery percentages of values are low. Therefore, BC needs to understand whether all financial institutions participating in the Pix deal are actually cooperating in blocking and returning the money, says Fernandes.
The researcher claims that there is no information from the regulator on the cooperation of financial institutions in analyzing cases and blocking amounts. She said Idec recommended that British Columbia create a ranking that would inform consumers about which institutions are least active in combating scams and fraud.
The goal is for consumers to have more information about the reputation of banks or fintechs to understand which institutions they can trust.
— Why are so many challenges rejected? Who refuses? The scammed customer’s bank or the bank the money was sent to? Is there a recurrence of the institutions that reject the most? These are the questions that need to be answered so that consumers can know the reputation of institutions. This way we would have more information about which banks, fintechs or payment institutions we can trust.
Concerning the dispute button, Idec recommended that the BC adopt a simpler name, so that the population clearly understands what it is used for.
— Something like “button shot” or “SOS Shot” were expressions considered more relevant, because they make it easier to understand for the end user. Reduces inappropriate triggering. This also avoids wasting time, a very important element in the race to recover values.
About The Author
