According to a 2018 report from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), organizations lose 5% of their annual revenues to fraud. While you know your organization is not immune to fraud, it can be easy to assume that sooner or later, the fraudsters inside your organization will be caught. Surely, the controls you have in place and the managers and employees you trust are keen enough to detect and report unusual behaviors. So, why not let the truth reveal itself?

Should you do more to detect fraud?

While it’s true that most fraud (40%) is caught by tips from employees, customers, or vendors associated with the victim organization, relying on those tips is neither the most proactive nor the most effective way to detect fraud. In other words, just because tips are common, doesn’t mean they are the best source of detection.

Proactive fraud detection measures are shown to minimize the losses and damages caused by occupational fraud. The stark difference between proactive and passive detection methods comes to light when median losses and median months to detection are compared. Let’s take a strictly passive fraud detection method: confession. In cases where confession is the primary source of detection, it usually takes 24 months and costs the organization $186,000 in losses before the fraud comes to light. Comparatively, proactive measures such as account reconciliation, impact the organization far less and are detected more quickly. On average, account reconciliation is able to detect fraud within 11 months of its onset and halves the cost of fraud induced on an organization in comparison to relying on tips.

The outliers here are detection methods that are neither strictly active nor passive. These include tips and external audits, and how they are categorized depends on the circumstance. According to the 2018 ACFE report, such solutions were less effective than truly active solutions, but more effective than explicitly passive. For example, where fraud is detected through a tip, the case has generally already gone on for an average of 18 months with a median loss of $126K.

Being proactive is key to minimizing the losses and damages caused by occupational fraud.

The 2018 ACFE Report cites six proactive detection methods:

• IT Controls
• Surveillance/Monitoring
• Account Reconciliation
• Internal Audit
• Management Review
• Document Examination

The correlation between active and passive detection methods is made very clear. When plotting median months to detection and total losses, all six proactive detection methods outcompeted the passive detection methods in terms of both the time it took to detect, and the total amount lost in the case.

The point is clear, by choosing to proactively go after fraud, you put yourself in better standing to catch offenses early. This could be achieved by putting in place one of the six active detection methods. These proactive measures can be combined with other detection tools, such as hotlines. Hotlines and other reporting mechanisms were associated with a 50% reduction in losses for companies who have them, compared to companies without.

Does your organization take proactive measures to reduce the risk of occupational fraud? Discover ways to protect your company from the inside out.

Occupational fraud, referring to fraud caused by an organization’s own employees or executives, is among the most preventable fraud risks that a company faces. While preventable, this form of fraud is also one of the most prevalent in organizations.

To take a closer look at this phenomenon, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) performs a bi-annual report. Its latest report, the 2018 Report to the Nations, studied 2,690 cases of occupational fraud across 125 nations. In addition to exploring its impact, the report looks at various fraud detection measures and their effect on the duration of the fraud and the size of loss incurred.

The ACFE report offers the latest stats on occupational fraud to inform your risk management and fraud prevention plans. Here are 8 notable findings:

1. Occupational fraud resulted in $7B in total losses in 2017.

The ACFE report identifies three categories of fraud: asset misappropriation, corruption, and financial statement fraud. Asset misappropriation was the most common type of fraud and occurred 89% of the time. However, financial statement fraud led to much greater median losses – $800,000 versus $114K median loss in asset misappropriation.

Of all asset misappropriation cases, altering checks and payments led to the greatest median losses, but billing fraud and non-cash were nearly tied for the highest overall incidences in asset misappropriation schemes.

2. Fraud cases resulted in losses greater than $1M or more in 22% of cases.

The 2018 ACFE report indicates that most companies either lose a relatively small sum (less than $200K) or a significantly larger amount. The differences are extreme. In 55% of cases, losses were below $200K, yet nearly a quarter of businesses incurred more than $1M in losses. The total loss values in between these two extremes were relatively less common, ranging from 2% to 11% in prevalence for this cohort. Of the 2,690 fraud cases examined, the median loss was $130K.

3. 40% of fraud cases were detected by a “tip.”

Early detection is key when it comes to limiting the losses associated with occupational fraud.  According to the ACFE study, the vast majority of fraud detection (40%) comes from tips, which far surpasses the second highest detection source, internal audit (15%).

Tips can come from anyone, but generally they come from within the company. In ACFE’s report, 53% of tips were received internally whereas 32% were from an outside source. Hotlines go hand-in-hand with tips as an effective way to detect fraud. Of the companies analyzed, those with an accessible hotline detected fraud cases 46% of the time, compared to a 30% success rate for companies without hotlines.

4. 96% of occupational fraud perpetrators had no prior fraud conviction.

Detection activities should take place throughout an employee’s tenure. Only 4% of fraudsters in the ACFE’s study had a history of criminal fraud. This is important information, as a pre-hire background check is likely insufficient on its own in preventing fraud. These first-time offenders require active and effective detection efforts to continuously protect the organization.

The ACFE was able to identify the six most common behavioral tendencies shared among fraudsters:

1. Living outside of one’s financial means.
2. Financial hardship.
3. Unnecessary levels of closeness to certain clients.
4. Controlling tendencies and reluctance to delegate with others.
5. Issues at home (e.g. divorce).
6. “Wheeler-dealer” tendencies.

5. Data monitoring and analysis combined with surprise audits reduce fraud loss by more than 50%.

Surprise audits and data monitoring are a powerful combination according to ACFE’s 2018 findings. Together, these contributed to significant reductions in fraud loss. When in place, proactive data monitoring and surprise audits got fraud cases under control in approximately half the time. Compared to cases where these controls were not in place, it reduced fraud losses by more than half.

Despite their effectiveness, neither proactive data analysis nor surprise audits tops the list for commonly used fraud control measures, each were only used by 37% of the companies examined in the 2018 study.

6. Weak internal security was responsible for almost half of the fraud instances.

Internal security can be a valuable line of defense for companies. When companies were asked about what opened the doors to fraud, 30% cited insufficient fraud controls as the top enabler. While 19% said that their systems were too weak and therefore overly easy for fraudsters to override.

7. Fraudsters who had been employed for more than 5 years stole twice as much.

According to the ACFE, employee tenure correlates with median fraud losses. The study found that fraudsters who had been a company for more than five years stole twice as much than relatively newer employees: $200K median loss versus $100K. Employees at a company for less than a year posed notably the least risk to companies, incurring median losses of $40K.

8. Collusion between two perpetrators doubles the loss.

Collusion is common in occupational fraud: 49% of cases investigated in ACFE’s study involved more than one fraudster. This holds especially true when executives and owners are involved – occurring in 66% of cases instigated by higher ups.

The involvement of multiple perpetrators is also more costly. The median loss in cases with one perpetrator was $74K, whereas that number rose to $150K for two perpetrators, and up to $339K when three or more were involved.

When it comes to occupational fraud, prevention and detection requires ongoing, diligent efforts. Whether it’s through surprise audits or providing channels for informants to report suspicious behavior, the team at Lowers & Associates can help establish your fraud prevention plan. Talk to a risk management expert today.

The ending of one year and beginning of a new year is a great time to give your organization a fraud prevention check-up. This natural time of reflection and renewal provides an opportunity to better protect your organization from the risks of fraud.

The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) suggests that a fraud check-up can save your company from disaster. Wondering how? Consider that fraud can be catastrophic, some can even put you out of business overnight. Even if survived, a major fraud can damage your company’s reputation so severely that it can be difficult, if not impossible, to recover. Performing a fraud check-up can help you pinpoint opportunities to rid your organization of fraud. It can expose your company’s vulnerabilities and allow you to take a more proactive approach to risk management.

If you’re still questioning the importance of a fraud check-up, consider the 18 fraud facts highlighted in our latest slideshow, which come from the ACFE’s Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse:

Tips for performing a fraud prevention check-up

The ACFE put together this fraud prevention check-up document that walks you through 7 key areas of fraud prevention. It includes fraud risk oversight, ownership, assessment, risk management policy, process, and environment-level anti-fraud controls, along with assessment factors for each. You can use the check-up to obtain a broad idea of your organization’s performance with respect to fraud prevention. Your scores/assessments across the various criteria can expose gaps that should be closed promptly in order to reduce losses and cut your risk of future disaster.

It is important to note that the ACFE recommends the check-up be performed as a collaboration between objective, independent fraud specialists, and people within the organization who have extensive knowledge about its operations.

We invite you to request a conversation with a Lowers & Associates Certified Fraud Examiner.

Occupational fraud is a common problem. It is even more common than most businesses know, since many incidents are never even detected. When fraud hits, a business can be devastated by the financial costs, along with damage to morale and reputation. The costs are massive.

The 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) report cites more than $6.3 billion in damages from a survey set of 2,410 businesses. Global losses from 2015 are projected at more than $3.7 trillion, with median losses around $150,000 per incident.

Our latest whitepaper, Occupational Fraud: A Hidden Killer of Organizational Performance, provides an in-depth look at the complexities of occupational fraud, so you can prevent, detect, minimize, and/or recover from it.

Start with education and STOP fraud in its tracks:

Given the high prevalence of organizational fraud, as reported by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), companies have strong incentives to invest in fraud auditing capabilities—both internal and independent (external) audits. While both are extremely effective, this article is focused on internal audits.

It turns out, companies with properly-structured internal audit systems are less likely to experience severe losses due to internal fraud. Further, we find the existence of a strong internal audit capability is of significant interest to underwriters when reviewing applications for crime and fidelity insurance coverage.

All companies can benefit from an internal audit system. When properly structured it provides a layer of protection and sends a strong message to both company vendors and employees that fraud will be detected quickly and won’t be tolerated. Continued monitoring leads to ever changing processes and controls that provide corrective measures designed to deter and detect fraudulent activity.

However, the likelihood of a company having an internal audit unit varies with the size of the company. Small companies are more often found without the internal audit departments, largely based on cost. These firms utilize the services of an independent audit firm to minimize exposure to fraud. This will be the topic of our next article.

7 Best Practices for Internal Audit

The internal audit, like any audit, requires sufficient autonomy, resources, skills, and access to relevant records to produce reliable results. It should operate according to a plan created and/or approved by the Board of Directors, with transparency in its functions that communicates its purpose to all vendors and employees. Communicating a strong message of zero tolerance on fraud and abuse is essential. The internal audit committee has an obligation to report the self-identified audit issue to the Audit Committee or the Board of Directors itself, if possible. … Continue reading