Tag Archives: employee theft

Immediate Vault Immediate Access

Fraud Incidents Rise in 2016, Kroll Finds

Posted on by

Reports of fraud have risen in the past year. In fact, incidences of every type of fraud have reached double-digit levels, according to the Kroll Global Fraud & Risk Report 2016/2017. Overall, 82% of executives reported falling victim to at least one instance of fraud in the past year, up from 75% in 2015.

Theft of physical assets remained the most prevalent type of fraud in the last year, reported by 29% of respondents, up 7 percentage points from 22% of respondents in the last survey. Kroll reported that vendor, supplier, or procurement fraud (26%) and information theft, loss, or attack (24%) were the next two most common types of fraud cited, each up 9 percentage points year-over-year.

Kroll found that most threats come from within an organization, with current and ex-employees being the most frequently cited perpetrators of fraud, cyber, and security incidents over the past 12 months. External parties were also identified as active perpetrators.

In the United States:
Kroll-fraud

• On the complexity of fraud risks, the majority (60%) of executives who reported suffering fraud incidents identified some combination of perpetrators, including current employees, ex-employees, and third parties, with almost half (49%) involving all three groups.

• Almost four in 10 respondents (39%) who were victims experienced fraud perpetrated by a junior employee, 30% by senior or middle management, 27% by ex-employees, and 27% by freelance/temporary employees. Agents and/or intermediaries were also cited by 27% of respondents as involved in carrying out fraud.

• Insiders were cited as the main perpetrators of fraud, and also identified as the most likely to discover it. Almost half (44%) of respondents said that recent fraud had been discovered through a whistleblowing system and 39% said it had been detected through an internal audit.

Among anti-fraud measures, the widest adoption—reported by 82% of executives surveyed—focused on information, such as IT security and technical countermeasures. The converse of the finding is concerning: nearly one out of five respondents (18%) have not adopted such protections.
kroll fraud risk

According to the report:

80% of respondents in the U.S. experienced fraud in the past 12 months, an increase of 5 percentage points on the previous year. This figure is 2 percentage points below the reported global average of 82%. Intellectual property (IP) theft, piracy, or counterfeiting is a clear threat to companies in the U.S., which was reported by just over a quarter (27%) of U.S. participants, almost twice the reported global average. The U.S. was the only country where IP theft was the most common type of fraud reported. Information theft, loss, or attack was the second most mentioned type of fraud impacting companies in the U.S., followed by conflicts of interest in the management team. The main perpetrators of fraud were reported to be insiders. Where fraud had been discovered, 36% of executives in the U.S. reported that junior employees were responsible, and 32% named senior or middle management. Respondents in the U.S. were most likely to have adopted IT security measures, followed by financial controls and asset security as their top three ways to mitigate fraud risk. In the U.S., the most common way fraud was detected was not through a whistle-blower, as it was for most of the other countries surveyed, but through an internal audit. Nearly half (49%) of U.S. participants said it was the most common detection mechanism.

Best Practices for Protecting Against Fraud

Posted on by

detecting fraud

In 1987, during arms control negotiations between the United States and the USSR, President Ronald Reagan popularized the phrase “trust but verify.” The maxim is pithy and oft-quoted, but for companies looking to mitigate risk and financial fraud, it should be reworded slightly to “Verify and monitor continuously.”

Fraud is often hard to detect—the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) estimates that the average fraud goes undetected for years. Some of the largest and most damaging frauds, including Bernie Madoff and Allen Stanford, spanned a decade or more. Fraud is also costly; it is estimated that U.S. businesses lose 7% of annual revenues to fraud, and it is responsible for one out of three business failures. The financial implications of fraud are bad enough, but reputational damage can be equally harmful.

Fraud is a potential danger for companies in all industries. In a survey my firm conducted in 2012, nearly 40% of private equity firms said they had experienced fraud. The statistics are sobering, but there is much that companies can do to protect themselves.

The biggest trend we are seeing is that corporate boards are implementing a tip line, which is a great way for employees and others to anonymously report wrongdoing. ACFE studies show 42% of frauds are uncovered through hotlines. You want employees to come forward and tell you what is wrong to give CEOs a chance to fix it. The average EEOC complaint costs between $50,000 and $100,000 in legal fees to settle, not to mention the potential damage to morale and reputation—wouldn’t you want a heads up to fix it before it gets to that?

Instituting rigorous hiring practices, including screening temps and contract workers, is another important tool in preventing fraud. It is not realistic to have the same level of scrutiny for an entry-level employee as you would for a senior executive, but the best way to avoid fraud is by carefully culling the bad apples before they are hired.

buy apixaban online medilaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/jpg/apixaban.html no prescription pharmacy

Look for criminal or regulatory issues, limited references, job-hopping, trouble making eye contact and a pattern of lawsuits. A number of our clients have begun to ask us to vet their information technology hires. The IT department has access to the most sensitive files and so it is imperative to investigate potential hires in that department.

Every firm should also have a code of conduct, which describes the culture of a company and what is expected of each employee in terms of actions and conduct. Each company is different, but some rules are universal: sexual harassment cannot be tolerated; discrimination against anyone based on color or religion is strictly forbidden; the workplace should be free of illicit drugs and alcohol; and employees cannot accept gifts from customers or vendors. Consequences for violating any of these codes should be clearly spelled out.

A system of basic financial checks and balances is another way to protect against fraud. Even in smaller firms, the same person should not be in charge of both accounts payable and accounts receivable. Larger payments from the company should be signed by two executives. Regular meetings should be arranged with IT officials to insure that cyber-crime is being monitored at all times.

buy avodart online medilaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/jpg/avodart.html no prescription pharmacy

Also, consider installing security cameras to serve as a deterrent for rogue employees.

buy cellcept online medilaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/jpg/cellcept.html no prescription pharmacy

In the wake of the Madoff scandal, the role of compliance officers has taken on greater importance. Compliance officers often have a seat at the C-level table and are valuable in helping companies to stay on the right side of regulations. As discussed, however, the best way to prevent fraud is by having several layers of protection.

Preventing fraud is an ongoing endeavor that requires a commitment to maintaining vigilance each day. Some red flags are easier to spot than others. Some of the most common “tells” of disgruntled or risky employees who may commit fraud include:

  • Living beyond their means
  • Financial difficulties
  • Too-close relationships with customers or vendors
  • Secretiveness
  • Drug or alcohol problems
  • Major stressors, like family problems, including divorce and bankruptcies

In the event that fraud is suspected, every company needs to have a playbook to help guide their actions. This should include having a process to address a tip or complaint, leveraging the expertise of investigators and attorneys and following a plan that keeps the company operating with minimum disruption.

The vast majority of companies prefer to keep things quiet and resolve matters in a private setting. No company wants to have one of its employees be the subject of a “perp walk,” where the alleged offender is shown by the media in handcuffs accompanied by police on their way to being charged.

The surge in cyber-crime is proof that fraud never truly disappears; it just changes shape and form. Therefore, it is up to each company to become a hardened target and make fraudsters want to look for an easier mark.

Smaller Companies More Vulnerable to Employee Theft

Posted on by

It stands to reason that larger organizations would be more at risk of embezzlement by employees, but the reverse has been shown to be the case.

buy augmentin online pelmeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/augmentin.html no prescription pharmacy

Organizations with fewer than 150 employees are particularly at risk, accounting for 82% of all embezzlement cases, HiscoxHiscox2 found in its new report, Embezzlement Study: A report on White Collar Crime in America. Smaller organizations with tight-knit workforces are particularly vulnerable because of the trust and empowerment given to employees.

Incorporating employee theft cases active in the U.S. federal court system in 2015, the study found that 69% represented companies with less than 500 employees. Perpetrators are often “regular people who are smart, well-liked, and those you’d least expect to steal,” according to Hiscox.

buy rogaine online pelmeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/rogaine.html no prescription pharmacy

 How does a trusted employee become a criminal?

buy pepcid online pelmeds.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/pepcid.html no prescription pharmacy

Motivations can range from financial pressure to a belief that they are underpaid by the company.

Employees with more tenure, access and control over finances are found to take the largest amounts. While the type of fraud can vary by industry, what is consistent is access to funds. In fact, managers were found more likely to steal than other employees.

Hiscox3

For the second year in a row, the greatest number of cases, 17%, was in the financial services industry and second was nonprofits at 16%. Labor unions ranked third, followed by real estate/construction. The largest scheme was a $7 million loss in Texas; followed by ones in Connecticut at $9 million, Ohio at $8.7 million and Utah at $4 million.

Hiscox4

Schemes include taking cash or bank deposits, forging checks, fraudulent credit card use, fake invoices and false billing of vendors and payroll fraud.

Companies can protect themselves in a number of ways, including putting checks and balances in place, performing background checks on employees who handle money and teaching employees how to detect fraud, according to Hiscox.

Hiscox5

The study findings also include:

Hiscox

Should Your Company Install an Office Surveillance System?

Posted on by

There are plenty of compelling reasons to install a surveillance system in your office, but there are also a number of reasons not to. Cameras are becoming more and more common in our daily lives, and choosing whether or not to embrace them in your own workplace can be a challenging decision.

online pharmacy elavil with best prices today in the USA

There are advantages and disadvantages to consider before installing cameras and phone/Internet monitoring. Here are a few of them:

Pro: Cameras prevent theft

There is no denying that a camera monitoring system is going to drastically reduce incidents of employee theft. Studies have shown time and time again that areas that are clearly monitored by camera systems have significantly less crime than places that suggest anonymity. If you have a problem with items going missing around the office, installing cameras can be a way of showing that you are aware of the problem without directly confronting a potentially innocent employee. Cameras are a highly effective deterrent that can quickly nip a theft problem in the bud.

Con: Cameras may offer a false sense of security

If you have a particularly devious employee, cameras may actually work against you. If an employee really wants to steal from the office, he or she will probably find a way to do so regardless of the cameras. You may feel like you do not need to do anything else once cameras are installed, which can cause you to let your guard down. For this reason, cameras should be used as an addition to your current loss prevention plan, rather than being used as the primary deterrent.

online pharmacy cipro with best prices today in the USA

Pro: Cameras provide evidence

If an unforeseen incident occurs on your company’s property, you may have to deal with a lawsuit. Having cameras installed ensures that you have indisputable evidence to back up your story. If you suspect an employee of misconduct, you can simply check the camera to make sure your worries are not misguided. You never want to have to depend on your cameras, but it is certainly nice to know that they are there when you do.

Con: Employees may feel stifled

Any office manager knows that keeping morale up is essential to keep productivity high. Although you may mean well, installing cameras can sometimes be viewed as an invasion of privacy. It is important to form a bond of trust with your employees, and cameras or phone/Internet monitoring can undo the work you have done to establish meaningful relationships. However, explaining your stance on the issue and approaching it head-on may help to alleviate any concerns your staff may have.

Pro: Monitoring employees provides valuable training materials

Sometimes explaining how to handle a situation just isn’t as effective as being able to show a trainee a video or recording of a similar situation. Or, if an accident occurs, having video or audio recordings allows you to see what went wrong and prevent problems next time. Often words do not carry nearly as much impact as a recording of a real-life situation, so in-office surveillance can make your employees better at their jobs and more equipped to handle tough situations.

Con: The cost

Although today’s surveillance cameras are surprisingly budget-friendly, you still have to consider the cost of hiring employees to monitor them. You may also need to have them repaired if something goes wrong. Depending on the size of your office, buying multiple cameras and monitors can get quite pricy. The cameras often pay for themselves in the long run, however, by reducing theft and increasing productivity.

Choose based on your situation

Every office is different, and what works for one may not be ideal for another. Cameras can be absolutely essential in some situations, or you may be able to operate just fine without them. You may want to start with just a camera or two to see how your employees react, and then add more if necessary. Making the right choice for your office can be challenging, but in-office surveillance can be a valuable way to protect your livelihood and improve employee conduct.