Fraud: the occupational hazards

In recent years, people the world over have watched as companies such as
Enron, Parmalat, and Hollinger International have fallen prey to the financial
misdeeds of crooked executives.

The stories of these organisations and their tumbles from greatness are
symptomatic of what some believe to be a continuing trend of dishonesty in
business. Accountants are often faced with the choice of being part of this
global problem or part of the solution.

Like many of you, I began a career in public accounting. I spent the next ten
years in the trenches as a U.S. FBI agent specialising in fraud investigations.
Then I founded the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, headquartered in
Austin, Texas and I have been chairman for 20 years.

We now have about 50,000 members in 125 nations. During the last two decades,
I have personally trained tens of thousands of accountants and auditors in the
UK and the US and have conducted extensive worldwide research on white-collar
crime.

My experiences have taught me one thing above all others ­ fraud is a war.
And like other wars, we can’t win unless we have the ability to recognise the
enemy.

Occupational fraud defined

There is no such thing as an ‘accidental’ fraud. In general, four elements
must exist in any fraud case: a material false statement, knowledge of the
falsity of the statement (intent), reliance on the false statement by the
victim, and damages as a result.

Although there are many types of fraud, they all have the above elements as
their common basis. As accounting professionals, we are most often concerned
with one type, which is frequently called ‘internal fraud’. A more precise term
is ‘occupational fraud’, which was defined in the ACFE’s first Report to the
Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse as: ‘The use of one’s occupation for
personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the
employing organisation’s resources or assets.’

As you can see by the breadth of this definition, occupational fraud can—and
does—occur from the mailroom to the boardroom and everywhere in between. But
that doesn’t mean that there is an unlimited number of ways to commit it. In the
early 1995, I began a research project that examined 2,608 cases of actual fraud
provided by Certified Fraud Examiners, many of which occurred in the UK. I
reached the conclusion that regardless of international borders there are three
principle categories of occupational fraud that can be broken down into 13
different schemes and numerous sub-schemes.

This
research developed the Uniform Occupational Fraud Classification System, more
commonly known as the ‘Fraud Tree’.

Some of the major findings from the most recent report are:

Types of occupational fraud

Based on our research of the methods used to defraud organisations, we have
identified three broad categories of occupational fraud: asset misappropriation,
corruption, and financial statement fraud. Each of these can be further broken
down into several sub-schemes (see ‘sub-schemes categories’ below).

Asset misappropriations involve the theft or misuse of an organisation’s
assets. Common examples include skimming revenues, stealing inventory, and
forging cheques. Asset misappropriations are by far the most common of the three
categories of occupational fraud, having occurred in 89% of the cases in the
2008 Report. However, these frauds also had the smallest median loss of the
three categories, at $150,000.

Corruption occurs when fraudsters wrongfully use their influence in a
business transaction in order to procure some benefit for themselves or another
person. Common examples include accepting kickbacks and engaging in conflicts of
interest. Corruptions cases fall in the middle of the three categories of
occupational fraud in terms of both frequency and cost; in the 2008 report,
corruption was a part of just over one-quarter of the cases we reviewed and
caused a median loss of $375,000.

Fraudulent statements generally involve falsification of an organisation’s
financial statements. Common examples include overstating revenues and
understating liabilities or expenses. Of the three categories of occupational
fraud, financial statement schemes are the least common—occurring in only 10% of
cases in our 2008 report—and most costly, causing a median loss of $2m.

Now you have an overview of occupational fraud: the main categories, the
relative frequencies and median losses, and how frauds are typically uncovered.
Although there is much more that we can—and must—learn about fraud prevention
and detection to effectively combat it, hopefully I have laid the groundwork for
you to become an active deterrent to the lies and deceit that plague the
business world today.

Sub-scheme categories

Asset Misappropriations

Two scheme types target incoming cash:

Fraudulent disbursements involve thefts of outgoing payments and include:

Theft of non-cash assets involves the larceny or misuse of physical assets,
including inventory, computer equipment, office supplies, and company vehicles;
non-cash financial assets, such as stocks, bonds, or other investments; and pr
oprietary information.

Corruption Schemes

Corruption schemes can be broken down into four categories:

Financial Statement Fraud Schemes:

Most financial statement manipulations take the form of one or more of the
following classifications:

Joseph T Wells, CFE, CPA is founder and chairman of the
50,000 member Association of Certified Fraud Examiners in Austin, Texas, USA.
Andi McNeal, the ACFE’s assistant director of research, assisted in its
preparation .

To view a chart explaining uniform occupational fraud classifications, click
here

Share
Exit mobile version