ILNews

BGBC Partners: Fraud can happen anywhere without prevention measures

July 4, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Commentary

By Howard I Gross, Steven W. Reed and Casey L. Higgs

A typical organization loses 5 percent of its annual revenue to fraud.

When a business owner or adviser ponders this finding from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners’ (ACFE) 2012 Report to the Nations, one has to consider their own susceptibility to fraud. Initially, you convince yourself that you have a low risk for fraud because you operate a small business, employ trusted people (and know what they are doing) or the business has been operating for years. You believe “it can’t happen to me.”

You are wrong.

Small businesses historically have suffered disproportionately larger losses due to fraud than larger organizations. According to the 2012 ACFE report, the smallest organizations suffered the largest median losses. Further, nearly half of the victim organizations do not recover any of the fraud losses.

Billing and check tampering are the most common fraud schemes reported by the entities. A single individual in a smaller entity, such as the bookkeeper, many times performs the check writing and cash collection processes. Within larger entities, these duties are segregated, with a formal approval and authorization process in place. Small organizations typically lack the appropriate anti-fraud measures which leaves them especially vulnerable.

The likelihood of successful fraud prevention and detection at smaller organizations is relatively low due to:

The organization’s accounting firm performs a compilation or review and not a financial statement audit;

The belief that a fraud risk-management program is costly to implement;

The belief that a substantial increase in resources is necessary to deploy proper internal controls; and

Employees are family and/or close friends and there exists a relationship of trust.

An organization that receives a compilation or review and not an audit of the financial statements does not reap the benefits of having its operational processes and internal controls analyzed by auditors. Auditing standards require auditors to consider the risk of fraud when planning and performing audits, but this is not required in a compilation or review. While audits are beneficial for assessing internal controls, the ACFE report stresses that external audits should not be relied upon as a business’s primary fraud-detection method. In the survey, audits only detected 3 percent of the frauds and ranked poorly in limiting losses.

Small businesses can implement cost- effective control measures such as:

Employee education and fraud awareness

Simple segregation of duties

Job rotation and mandatory vacation

A company code of conduct

Tip hotline

Management review

According to the ACFE report, hotlines are consistently the most effective fraud-detection method, but only 15 percent of small businesses have a hotline in place. Enacting hotlines, as well as all of the other inexpensive anti-fraud measures discussed above, can help business owners prevent fraud.

The belief that more resources are required to develop and implement proper internal control procedures also is misleading. An organization does not necessarily need to hire additional resources. A shift in roles, fraud training, and a proper segregation of duties can occur in organizations as small as three employees.

Lastly, businesses often employ family members and close friends, and there exists a relationship of trust. These businesses generally have very few controls in place, if any at all, because they rely on and trust those individuals. We recently encountered a fraud of this kind. A veteran employee of a small professional practice who was a longtime family friend allegedly misappropriated more than $100,000 in cash receipts over the course of four years. This particular employee was trusted by the owners and the perpetrator’s duties were not questioned nor were there proper controls in place to prevent or detect the ongoing fraud. Further, this person, like 87 percent of all perpetrators, was a first-time offender with a clean employment history.

The presence of anti-fraud controls significantly decreases the cost and duration of fraud schemes. According the ACFE report, organizations that had implemented any of the most common anti-fraud controls experienced lower losses and a shorter time to detection than organizations without controls.

Fraud can happen, especially in small businesses. The risk of fraud affecting your client increases without proper anti-fraud measures and controls. The first step of successful fraud prevention and detection is to acknowledge and be aware that fraud can occur. A seasoned forensic team can assist in evaluating your situation before it is too late.•

__________

Howard I Gross, CPA/ABV/CFF, CFP; Steven W. Reed, CPA/ABV; and Casey L. Higgs, CPA/CFF, CFE, CVA are with BGBC Partners, LLP – Litigation, Forensic and Business Valuation. Contact BGBC at 317-633-4700 or visit www.bgbc.com. The opinions expressed are those of the authors.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT