Читать книгу Profiling The Fraudster - Padgett Simon - Страница 13

The nature and threat of occupational fraud is universal, according to the ACFE. Although the research in its 2012 Report to the Nations noted some regional differences in the methods used to commit fraud, as well as organizational approaches to preventing and detecting it, many trends and characteristics are similar regardless of where the fraud occurred. Whereas this may make writing a textbook on how to deal with fraud a little easier in that much of the approach may take a standardized approach, this is certainly not the case when we start to consider profiling. Profiling the human being cannot be a standard process with a one-size-fits-all solution. Each human being has unique characteristics and behavioral attributes, thereby giving a unique angle to what may be described as universal fraud.

Providing individuals with a means to report suspicious activity is a critical part of any antifraud program. Fraud reporting mechanisms, such as communication channels and whistleblowing hotlines, should be set up to receive tips from both internal and external sources and should ideally be externally managed, should offer anonymity and toll-free calling, and should allow confidentiality. Management should actively encourage employees to report suspicious activity, offering a reporting process free of reprisals and with the maximum protection for the whistleblower. In many jurisdictions this protection comes through the legal system with whistleblower protection embedded in local law. Interestingly, where I have worked on introducing whistleblowing mechanisms in organizations in jurisdictions where there is no legal protection for whistleblowers, I strongly advise that the organization's CEO or chairman state in his launch address as well as in his preamble in the whistleblowing policy that he personally guarantees the protection of whistleblowers and that their actions will not be detrimental to them in any way, irrespective of legal protection or its absence.

External audits should not be relied on as an organization's primary fraud detection method, says the ACFE. Such audits were the most commonly implemented control in the study; however, they detected only 3 percent of the frauds reported and they ranked poorly in limiting fraud losses. While external audits serve an important purpose and can have a strong preventive effect on potential fraud, their usefulness as a means of uncovering fraud is limited. Both internal and external auditors, however, have access to and are therefore crucial to the collection and analysis of the information and data required to set up a profiling mechanism in the organization.

Targeted fraud awareness and sensitization training for employees and managers is a critical component of an effective antifraud program and is a proven method of preventing and detecting fraud. Not only are employee tips the most common way occupational fraud is detected, but the research shows that organizations that have antifraud training programs for employees, managers, and executives experience lower losses and shorter fraud durations than organizations that do not have such programs in place. At a minimum, staff members should be sensitized as to what fraud actually is, what actions constitute fraud, how fraud harms everyone in the organization, and how to report suspected fraudulent activity.

Research continues to show that small businesses are particularly vulnerable to fraud. These organizations typically have fewer resources than their larger counterparts, which often translates to fewer and less-effective antifraud controls. In addition, because smaller businesses have fewer resources, the losses they experience tend to have a greater impact than they would in larger organizations. Managers and owners of small businesses should focus their antifraud efforts on the most cost-effective control mechanisms, such as hotlines, employee training, and setting a proper ethical tone at the top and within the organization. Additionally, assessing the specific fraud schemes that pose the greatest threat to the business can help identify those areas that merit additional investment in targeted antifraud controls. The fraud risk assessment process is invaluable in determining fraud risk exposure and is a fundamental element of fraud profiling.