of 84
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
1/84
REPORT TO THE NATIONSO N O C C U P A T I O N A L F R A U D A N D A B U S E
2010 Global Fraud Study
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
2/84
2 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Lr rm prdn
When the ACFE published its rstReport to the Nation on Occupational Fraud and Abuse in 1996,
it broke new ground in anti-raud research by providing an analysis o the costs, the methodologies
and the perpetrators o raud within U.S. organizations. The collective body o knowledge con-
tained in the rst ve editions o the Report to the Nation published between 1996 and 2008
has become the most authoritative and widely quoted research publication on occupational
raud.
Now, or the rst time, the data contained in the Report have been drawn rom raud cases
throughout the world. As readers will see, it refects the truly universal nature o occupational raud. This expansion o
our research is denoted in the modied title or this study, which has now become the Report to the Nations on Occu-
pational Fraud and Abuse.
The inormation contained in this report is based on 1,843 cases o occupational raud that were reported by the Certied
Fraud Examiners (CFEs) who investigated them. These oenses occurred in more than 100 countries on six continents,
and more than 43% took place outside the United States. What is perhaps most striking about the data we gathered is
how consistent the patterns o raud are around the globe. While some regional dierences exist, or the most part oc-
cupational raud seems to operate similarly whether it occurs in Europe, Asia, South America or the United States.
The Report to the Nations is the brainchild o the ACFEs ounder and Chairman, Dr. Joseph T. Wells, CFE, CPA who
throughout his career has contributed more to the study o raud and the development o the anti-raud proession than
any other person. On behal o the ACFE, and in honor o its ounder, Dr. Wells, I am pleased to present the2010 Report to
the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse to practitioners, business and government organizations, academics, the
media and the general public throughout the world. The inormation contained in this Report will be invaluable to those
who seek to deter, detect, prevent or simply understand the global economic impact o occupational raud.
James D. Ratley, CFE
President,
Association o Certied Fraud Examiners
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
3/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Table of Contents
Exetive Smmary .............................................................................................................................................................4
Introtion ..........................................................................................................................................................................6
The cost o Opationa Fra ..........................................................................................................................................8
Distribution o Losses
How Opationa Fra Is committe ............................................................................................................................10
Asset Misappropriation Sub-Schemes
Duration o Fraud Schemes
detetion o Fra Shemes .............................................................................................................................................16
Initial Detection o Occupational Fraud Schemes
Source o Tips
Impact o Hotlines
Detection Methods Based on Organization Type
Detecting Fraud in Small Businesses
Detection o Occupational Fraud Based on Region
Vitim Organizations ..........................................................................................................................................................24
Geographical Location o Organizations
Type o Organizations
Size o Organizations
Methods o Fraud in Small Businesses
Industry o Organizations
Anti-Fraud Controls at Victim Organizations
Anti-Fraud Controls at Small Businesses
Anti-Fraud Controls by Region
Eectiveness o Controls
Importance o Controls in Detecting or Limiting Fraud
Control Weaknesses that Contributed to Fraud
Modication o Controls
Perpetrators ........................................................................................................................................................................48
Perpetrators Position
Perpetrators Gender
Perpetrators Age
Perpetrators Tenure
Perpetrators Education Level
Perpetrators Department
Background Criminal and Employment History
Behavioral Red Flags Displayed by Perpetrators
Methooogy ......................................................................................................................................................................75
Appenix breakown o Geographi Regions y contry ..........................................................................................78
Fra Prevention chekist ................................................................................................................................................80
Aot the AcFE ..................................................................................................................................................................82
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
4/84
4 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
summary Fndng
Survey participants estimated that the typicalorganization loses 5% o its annual revenue toraud. Applied to the estimated 2009 Gross WorldProduct, this gure translates to a potential totalraud loss o more than $2.9 trillion.
The median loss caused by the occupationalraud cases in our study was $160,000. Nearlyone-quarter o the rauds involved losses o atleast $1 million.
The rauds lasted a median o 18 months beorebeing detected.
Asset misappropriation schemes were the mostcommon orm o raud in our study by a widemargin, representing 90% o cases though theywere also the least costly, causing a median losso $135,000. Financial statement raud schemeswere on the opposite end o the spectrum in bothregards: These cases made up less than 5% othe rauds in our study, but caused a median losso more than $4 million by ar the most costlycategory. Corruption schemes ell in the middle,
comprising just under one-third o cases andcausing a median loss o $250,000.
Occupational rauds are much more likely to bedetected by tip than by any other means. Thisnding has been consistent since 2002 when webegan tracking data on raud detection methods.
Small organizations are disproportionatelyvictimized by occupational raud. Theseorganizations are typically lacking in anti-raudcontrols compared to their larger counterparts,which makes them particularly vulnerable to raud.
The industries most commonly victimized in our
study were the banking/nancial services,manuacturing and government/publicadministration sectors.
Anti-raud controls appear to help reduce the costand duration o occupational raud schemes. Welooked at the eect o 15 common controls onthe median loss and duration o the rauds. Victimorganizations that had these controls in place hadsignicantly lower losses and time-to-detection thanorganizations without the controls.
High-level perpetrators cause the greatestdamage to their organizations. Frauds commit-ted by owners/executives were more than threetimes as costly as rauds committed by managers,and more than nine times as costly as employeerauds. Executive-level rauds also took muchlonger to detect.
excuv summary
This Report is based on data
compiled from a study of 1,843
cases of occupational fraud that
occurred worldwide between
January 2008 and December
2009. All information was pro-
vided by the Certied Fraud Ex-aminers (CFEs) who investigated
those cases. The fraud cases in
our study came from 106 nations
with more than 40% of cases
occurring in countries outside
the United States providing a
truly global view into the plague
of occupational fraud.
One-fourth of the frauds in this Reportcaused at least $1 million in losses.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
5/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
More than 80% o the rauds in our studywere committed by individuals in one o sixdepartments: accounting, operations, sales,executive/upper management, customer serviceor purchasing.
More than 85% o raudsters in our study hadnever been previously charged or convicted ora raud-related oense. This nding is consistentwith our prior studies.
Fraud perpetrators oten display warning signs
that they are engaging in illicit activity. The mostcommon behavioral red fags displayed by theperpetrators in our study were living beyond theirmeans (43% o cases) and experiencing nancialdiculties (36% o cases).
Cnclun and Rcmmndan
Occupational raud is a global problem. Thoughsome o our ndings dier slightly rom region toregion, most o the trends in raud schemes, per-petrator characteristics and anti-raud controls aresimilar regardless o where the raud occurred.
Fraud reporting mechanisms are a criticalcomponent o an eective raud prevention anddetection system. Organizations should implementhotlines to receive tips rom both internal andexternal sources. Such reporting mechanismsshould allow anonymity and condentiality, andemployees should be encouraged to reportsuspicious activity without ear o reprisal.
Organizations tend to over-rely on audits. Externalaudits were the control mechanism most widelyused by the victims in our survey, but they rankedcomparatively poorly in both detecting raud andlimiting losses due to raud. Audits are clearly
important and can have a strong preventativeeect on raudulent behavior, but they should notbe relied upon exclusively or raud detection.
Employee education is the oundation opreventing and detecting occupational raud.Sta members are an organizations top rauddetection method; employees must be trained inwhat constitutes raud, how it hurts everyone inthe company and how to report any questionableactivity. Our data show not only that most raudsare detected by tips, but also that organizationsthat have anti-raud training or employees andmanagers experience lower raud losses.
Surprise audits are an eective, yet underutilized,tool in the ght against raud. Less than 30% ovictim organizations in our study conductedsurprise audits; however, those organizationstended to have lower raud losses and to detectrauds more quickly. While surprise audits can beuseul in detecting raud, their most importantbenet is in preventing raud by creating a percep-tion o detection. Generally speaking, occupationalraud perpetrators only commit raud i theybelieve they will not be caught. The threat osurprise audits increases employees perception
that raud will be detected and thus has a strongdeterrent eect on potential raudsters.
Small businesses are particularly vulnerable toraud. In general, these organizations have ar ewercontrols in place to protect their resources romraud and abuse. Managers and owners o smallbusinesses should ocus their control investmentson the most cost-eective mechanisms, suchas hotlines and setting an ethical tone or theiremployees, as well as those most likely to helpprevent and detect the specic raud schemes thatpose the greatest risks to their businesses.
Internal controls alone are insucient to ully
prevent occupational raud. Though it is importantor organizations to have strategic and eectiveanti-raud controls in place, internal controls willnot prevent all raud rom occurring, nor will theydetect most raud once it begins.
Fraudsters exhibit behavioral warning signs o theirmisdeeds. These red fags such as living beyondones means or exhibiting control issues will notbe identied by traditional controls. Auditors andemployees alike should be trained to recognize thecommon behavioral signs that a raud is occurringand encouraged not to ignore such red fags, as
they might be the key to detecting or deterring araud.
Given the high costs o occupational raud,eective raud prevention measures are critical.Organizations should implement a raud preventionchecklist similar to that on page 80 in order to helpeliminate raud beore it occurs.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
6/84
6 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
A wide variety o crimes and swindles all under the um-
brella o raud. From Ponzi schemes and identity thet to
data breaches and alsied expense reports, the ways
perpetrators attempt to part victims rom their money are
extremely diverse and continually evolving. At their core,
however, all rauds involve a violation o trust.
For businesses, no trust violations have the potential to be
as harmul as those committed by the very individuals who
are relied upon to make the organization successul: its
employees. This report ocuses on the category o raud
occupational raud in which an employee abuses his
or her position within the organization or personal gain.
More ormally, occupational raud may be dened as:
The use of ones occupation for personal enrichment
through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of
the employing organizations resources or assets.
This denition is very broad, encompassing a wide rangeo misconduct by employees at every organizational level.
Occupational raud schemes can be as simple as pilerage
o company supplies or manipulation o timesheets, or as
complex as sophisticated nancial statement rauds.
One o the ACFEs primary missions is to educate anti-
raud proessionals and the general public about the seri-
ous threat occupational raud poses. To that end, we have
undertaken extensive research to provide an in-depth look
at the costs and trends in occupational raud. In 1996, theACFE released its Report to the Nation on Occupational
Fraud and Abuse, which was the largest known privately
unded study on the subject at the time.
The stated goals o the rst Report were to:
Summarize the opinions o experts on the percentage and amount o organizational revenue lost to allorms o occupational raud and abuse.
Examine the characteristics o the employees whocommit occupational raud and abuse.
Determine what kinds o organizations are victimso occupational raud and abuse.
Categorize the ways in which serious raud andabuse occur.
Since the inception o the Report to the Nation more than
a decade ago, we have released ve updated editions in
2002, 2004, 2006, 2008 and the current version in 2010. Like
the rst Report, each subsequent edition has been based
on detailed case inormation provided by Certied Fraud Ex-
aminers (CFEs). With each new edition o the Report, we
add to and modiy the questions we ask o our survey par-
ticipants in order to enhance the quality o the data we col-
lect. This evolution o theReport to the Nation has enabled
us to continue to draw more meaningul inormation rom
the experiences o CFEs and the rauds they encounter.
In our 2010 Report, we have, or the rst time ever, wid-
ened our study to include cases rom countries outside
the United States. This expansion allows us to more ully
explore the truly global nature o occupational raud and
provides an enhanced view into the severity and impact
o these crimes. Additionally, we are able to compare the
anti-raud measures taken by organizations worldwide inorder to give raud ghters everywhere the most appli-
cable and useul inormation to help them in their raud
prevention and detection eorts.
inrducn
A N Radr: Throughout this Report, we have included several comparisons o our current ndings with those rom our 2008 Report. However, it is important to note thatthe 2010 data include reported rauds rom CFEs in 106 countries, while the 2008 data pertain to rauds reported only by CFEs in the United States. Although the populations orespondents or the two studies are not entirely analogous, we have nonetheless included these prior-study comparisons, as we believe interesting and useul trends can be seenby comparing and contrasting the rauds reported in the two studies. To enhance data clarity, we have included comparisons o 2008 data with both all-case data and U.S.-only datarom our 2010 research when noteworthy discrepancies in our current ndings are present.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
7/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Opationa Fra an Ase cassifation System
Corruption
Conflicts ofInterest
Cash
FraudulentDisbursements
PurchasingSchemes
SalesSchemes
Bid Rigging
OtherOther
Larceny Skimming Misuse Larceny
AssetRequisitionsand Transfers
False Salesand Shipping
Purchasingand Receiving
UnconcealedLarceny
Sales
Unrecorded Write-offSchemes
LappingSchemes
Unconcealed
Understated
ReceivablesRefunds
and Other
Other
Cash onHand
From theDeposit
Billing Schemes Payroll SchemesExpense
ReimbursementSchemes
Check TamperingRegister
Disbursements
Forged Maker False Voids
False RefundsForged
Endorsement
ConcealedChecks
AuthorizedMaker
Altered Payee
MischaracterizedExpenses
GhostEmployees
CommissionSchemes
OverstatedExpenses
FictitiousExpenses
MultipleReimbursements
WorkersCompensation
Falsified Wages
Shell Company
Non-AccompliceVendor
PersonalPurchases
InvoiceKickbacks
Asset/RevenueOverstatements
TimingDifferences
FicticiousRevenues
ImproperDisclosures
ConcealedLiabilities and
Expenses
ImproperAsset
Valuations
Asset/RevenueUnderstatements
EmploymentCredentials
InternalDocuments
ExternalDocuments
IllegalGratuities
EconomicExtortion
Non-Cash
Non-Financial
Bribery Financial
AssetMisappropriation
FraudulentStatements
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
8/84
8 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Measuring the cost o occupational raud is an important,
yet incredibly challenging, endeavor. Arguably, the true
cost is incalculable. The inherently clandestine nature
o raud means that many cases will never be revealed,
and, o those that are, the ull amount o losses might not
be uncovered, quantied or reported. Consequently, any
measurement o occupational raud costs will be, at best,
an estimate. Nonetheless, determining such an approxi-
mation is critical to illustrate the pandemic and destruc-
tive nature o white-collar crime.
We asked each CFE who participated in our survey to pro-
vide his or her best estimate o the percentage o annual
revenues that the typical organization loses to raud in a
given year. The median response was that the average
organization annually loses 5% o its revenues to raud.
Applying this percentage to the 2009 estimated Gross
World Product o $58.07 trillion1 would result in a pro-
jected total global raud loss o more than $2.9 trillion.
Readers should note that this estimate is based solely
on the opinions o 1,843 anti-raud experts, rather than
any specic data or actual observations; accordingly, it
should not be interpreted as a literal representation o the
worldwide cost o occupational raud. However, because
there is no way to precisely calculate the size o global
raud losses, the best estimate o anti-raud proession-
als with a rontline view o the problem may be as reli-
able a measure as we are able to make. In any event, it
is undeniable that the overall cost o occupational raud
is immense, certainly costing organizations hundreds o
billions or trillions o dollars each year.
t C occuanal Fraud
1United States Central Intelligence Agency, The World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-actbook/geos/xx.html)
Fraud, by its very nature, does
not lend itself to being scien-
tically observed or measured
in an accurate manner. One of
the primary characteristics of
fraud is that it is clandestine,
or hidden; almost all fraud in-volves the attempted conceal-
ment of the crime.
The typical organization loses 5% of itsannual revenues to occupational fraud.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
9/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Drbun L
We received inormation about the total dollar loss or 1,822 o the 1,843 rauds reported to us in our study.2 The median
loss or these cases was $160,000. Nearly one-third o the raud schemes caused a loss to the victim organization o
more than $500,000, and almost one-quarter o all reported cases topped the $1 million threshold.
distrition o doar losses
2Although this Report includes raud cases rom more than 100 nations, all monetary amounts presented throughout this Report are in U.S. dollars.
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
$1,000,000and up
$500,000 $999,999
$100,000 $499,999
$50,000 $99,999
$10,000 $49,999
$1,000 $9,999
Less than$1,000
Dollar Loss
PercentofCases
2.4%
7.2%
18.4%
10.6%
29.3%
8.4%
23.7%
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
10/84
10 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Previous ACFE research has identied three primary cat-
egories o occupational raud used by individuals to de-
raud their employers.Asset misappropriations are those
schemes in which the perpetrator steals or misuses an
organizations resources. These rauds include schemes
such as skimming cash receipts, alsiying expense re-
ports and orging company checks.
Corruption schemes involve the employees use o his orher infuence in business transactions in a way that vio-
lates his or her duty to the employer or the purpose o
obtaining a benet or him- or hersel or someone else.
Examples o corruption schemes include bribery, extor-
tion and a confict o interest.
Financial statement fraud schemes are those involving
the intentional misstatement or omission o material in-
ormation in the organizations nancial reports. Common
methods o raudulent nancial statement manipulation
include recording ctitious revenues, concealing liabili-
ties or expenses and articially infating reported assets.
As indicated in the ollowing charts, asset misappropriations
are by ar both the most requent and the least costly orm
o occupational raud. On the other end o the spectrum are
cases involving nancial statement raud. These schemes
were present in less than 5% o the cases reported to us,
but caused a median loss o more than $4 million. Corrup-
tion schemes ell in the middle category in both respects,
occurring in just under one-third o all cases involved in our
study and causing a median loss o $250,000.
hw occuanal Fraud i Cmmd
Based on previous ACFE
research we have broken down
the schemes reported to us
into three primary categories:
asset misappropriation,
corruption, and nancial
statement fraud.
Financial statement fraud is the mostcostly form of occupational fraud, causinga median loss of more than $4 million.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
11/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Opationa Fras y category Freqeny3
Opationa Fras y category Meian loss
3The sum o percentages in this chart exceeds 100% because several cases involved schemes rom more than one category.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2010
2008
Financial
Statement Fraud
Corruption
Asset
Misappropriation88.7%
32.8%
10.3%
86.3%
26.9%
4.8%
Percent of Cases
Typ
e
ofFraud
$0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000
2010
2008
AssetMisappropriation
Corruption
FinancialStatement Fraud
Median Loss
Type
ofFraud
$4,100,000
$2,000,000
$250,000
$135,000
$150,000
$375,000
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
12/84
12 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
As previously mentioned, our 2010 data include raud cases rom countries throughout the world, while our 2008 data
contain only U.S.-based cases. In the ollowing charts, we isolated the U.S. cases rom our current study to make a more
direct comparison to our 2008 data. Interestingly, while nancial statement raud remained the least common and most
costly orm o raud among U.S. cases, there was a much lower percentage o nancial statement cases in this study
(our percent) as compared to 2008 (ten percent). Additionally, the median losses or all three categories o raud were
notably smaller in 2010 than they were in 2008.
hw occuanal Fraud i Cmmd
Opationa Fras y category (u.S. ony) Freqeny4
4The sum o percentages in this chart exceeds 100% because several cases involved schemes rom more than one category.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
2010
2008
Financial
Statement Fraud
Corruption
Asset
Misappropriation88.7%
21.9%
10.3%
89.8%
26.9%
4.3%
Percent of Cases
Type
ofFraud
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
13/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
In addition to observing the requency and median losses
caused by the three categories o raud, we analyzed the
proportion o the total losses suered based on scheme
category. The cases in our study represented a combined
total loss o more than $18 billion. As indicated in the chart
to the right, o the total reported losses that were attribut-
able to a specic scheme type, 21% were caused by asset
misappropriation schemes, 11% by corruption and 68%
by raudulent nancial statements.
Opationa Fras y category (u.S. ony) Meian loss
Perent o Tota Reporte doar losses
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000
2010
2008
AssetMisappropriation
Corruption
FinancialStatement Fraud
Median Loss
Typ
e
ofFraud
$1,730,000
$2,000,000
$175,000
$100,000
$150,000
$375,000
Financial Statement Fraud
68.0%
Asset Misappropriation
20.8%
Corruption
11.3%
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
14/84
14 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
hw occuanal Fraud i Cmmd
A Marran sub-scm
With nearly 90% o occupational rauds involving some orm o asset misappropriation, it is instructional to urther de-
lineate the methods used by employees to embezzle organizational assets. We divided asset misappropriation schemes
into nine sub-categories, as illustrated in the table on page 15. The rst eight sub-categories represent schemes target-
ing cash; these rauds account or approximately 85% o all asset misappropriations.
Two o the sub-schemes skimming and cash larceny involve pilering incoming cash receipts, such as sales revenues
and accounts receivable collections. The next ve sub-categories billing, expense reimbursement, check tampering,
payroll and raudulent register disbursement schemes involve raudulent disbursements o cash. The eighth orm o
cash misappropriation targets cash the organization has on hand, such as petty cash unds or cash in a vault. The nal
sub-category o asset misappropriations covers the thet or misuse o non-cash assets, including inventory, supplies, xed
assets, investments, intellectual property and proprietary inormation. The table on page 15 provides the requency and
median loss associated with each asset misappropriation sub-category.
Duran Fraud scm
In addition to examining the monetary cost o the raud cases reported to us, we analyzed the length o time these schemes
lasted beore being detected. The median duration the time period rom when the raud rst occurred to when it was
discovered or all cases in our study was 18 months. Not surprisingly, cases involving nancial statement raud the
most costly orm o raud lasted the longest, with a median duration o 27 months. Fraudulent register disbursements,
on the other hand, were not only the least costly orm o raud in our study, but also tended to be detected the soonest.
Meian dration o Fra base on Sheme Type
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Register Disbursement
Non-Cash
Larceny
Skimming
Cash on Hand
Corruption
Billing
Payroll
Expense Reimbursements
Check Tampering
Financial Statement Fraud 27
24
24
24
24
18
18
18
18
15
12
Median Months to Detection
SchemeType
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
15/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Asset Misappropriation S-categories
Cagry Dcrn examlCa
Rrd
prcn
all ca5Mdan
L
scm invlvng t Ca Rc
Skimming Any scheme in which cash is stolen roman organizationbefore it is recorded on theorganizations books and records
Employee accepts payment rom acustomer, but does not record the sale,and instead pockets the money
267 14.5% $60,000
Cash Larceny Any scheme in which cash is stolen roman organizationafterit has been recordedon the organizations books and records
Employee steals cash and checks romdaily receipts beore they can bedeposited in the bank
181 9.8% $100,000
scm invlvng Frauduln Dburmn Ca
Billing Any scheme in which a person causeshis employer to issue a payment bysubmitting invoices or ctitious goods orservices, infated invoices or invoices orpersonal purchases
Employee creates a shell company andbills employer or services not actuallyrendered
Employee purchases personal itemsand submits invoice to employer or
payment
479 26.0% $128,000
ExpenseReimbursements
Any scheme in which an employee makesa claim or reimbursement o ctitious orinfated business expenses
Employee les raudulent expensereport, claiming personal travel,nonexistent meals, etc.
278 15.1% $33,000
Check Tampering Any scheme in which a person steals hisemployers unds by intercepting, orgingor altering a check drawn on one o theorganizations bank accounts
Employee steals blank companychecks, makes them out to himsel oran accomplice
Employee steals outgoing check to avendor, deposits it into his own bankaccount
274 13.4% $131,000
Payroll Any scheme in which an employee causeshis employer to issue a payment bymaking alse claims or compensation
Employee claims overtime or hours notworked
Employee adds ghost employees to thepayroll
157 8.5% $72,000
Cash Register
Disbursements
Any scheme in which an employee makes
alse entries on a cash register to concealthe raudulent removal o cash
Employee raudulently voids a sale on
his cash register and steals the cash
55 3.0% $23,000
or A Marran scm
Cash on HandMisappropriations
Any scheme in which the perpetratormisappropriates cash kept on hand at thevictim organizations premises
Employee steals cash rom a companyvault
121 12.6% $23,000
Non-CashMisappropriations
Any scheme in which an employee stealsor misuses non-cash assets o the victimorganization
Employee steals inventory rom awarehouse or storeroom
Employee steals or misuses condentialcustomer nancial inormation
156 16.3% $90,000
5The sum o percentages in this table exceeds 100% because several cases involved asset misappropriation schemes rom more than one category.
N: Because asset misappropriation schemes are both so common and so diverse in their methods, or the remainder
o the Report, we will break down our analysis o the raud schemes into 11 categories corruption, nancial statement
raud and the nine sub-categories o asset misappropriation so as to provide a meaningul understanding o the ull
spectrum o ways in which employees deraud their employing organizations.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
16/84
16 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
One o the principal goals o our research is to identiy
how past rauds were detected so that organizations can
apply that knowledge to their uture anti-raud eorts.
Tips were by ar the most common detection method in
our study, catching nearly three times as many rauds as
any other orm o detection. This is consistent with the
ndings in our prior reports. Tips have been ar and away
the most common means o detection in every study
since 2002, when we began tracking the data.
Management review and internal audit were the second
and third most common orms o detection, uncovering
15% and 14% o rauds, respectively. It is also noteworthy
that 11% o rauds were detected through channels that
lie completely outside o the traditional anti-raud control
structure: accident, police notication and conession. In
other words, 11% o the time, the victim organization ei-
ther had to stumble onto the raud or be notied o it by a
third party in order to detect it.
Dcn Fraud scm
Initia detetion o Opationa Fras
Respondents to our survey
were asked to identify how the
frauds were rst discovered.
Three times as many frauds in
our study were uncovered by a
tip as by any other method.
Frauds are much more likely to bedetected by tips than by any other method.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
IT Controls
Confession
Notified by PoliceSurveillance/Monitoring
External Audit
Document Examination
Account Reconciliation
By Accident
Internal Audit
Management Review
Tip 40.2%
15.4%
13.9%
8.3%
6.1%
5.2%
4.6%
2.6%
1.8%
1.0%
0.8%
Percent of Cases
Dete
ctionMethod
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
17/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
surc t
Not surprisingly, employees were the most common
source o raud tips. However, customers, vendors, com-
petitors and acquaintances (i.e., non-company sources)
provided at least 34% o raud tips, which suggests that
raud reporting policies and programs should be publi-
cized not only to employees, but also to customers, ven-
dors and other external stakeholders.
imac Annymu Rrng
Mcanm (hln)
While tips have consistently been the most common way
to detect raud, the impact o tips is, i anything, understat-
ed by the act that so many organizations ail to implement
raud reporting systems. Such systems enable employees
to anonymously report raud or misconduct by phone or
through a web-based portal.6 The ability to report raud
anonymously is key because employees oten ear making
reports due to the threat o retaliation rom superiors ornegative reactions rom their peers. Also, most third-party
hotline systems oer programs to raise awareness about
how to report misconduct. Consequently, one would ex-
pect that the presence o a raud hotline would enhance
raud detection eorts and oster more tips.
This turns out to be true. As seen on page 18, the pres-
ence o raud hotlines correlated with an increase in the
number o cases detected by a tip. In organizations that
had hotlines, 47% o rauds were detected by tips, while
in organizations without hotlines, only 34% o cases were
detected by tips. This is important because tips have
repeatedly been shown to be the most eective way to
catch raud. The better an organization is at collecting andresponding to raud tips, the better it should be at detect-
ing raud and limiting losses.
In 67% o the cases where there was an anonymous
tip, that tip was reported through an organizations raud
hotline. This strongly suggests that hotlines are an eec-
tive way to encourage tips rom employees who might oth-
erwise not report misconduct. Perhaps most important, as
noted on page 43, organizations that had raud hotlines su-
ered much smaller raud losses than organizations without
hotlines. Those organizations also tended to detect rauds
seven months earlier than their counterparts.
6For simplicitys sake, we will reer to all reporting mechanisms as hotlines in this study.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Perp
etrator's
Acquaintan
ce
Compe
titor
Shar
eholde
r/
Owne
rVe
ndor
Anon
ymou
s
Custom
er
Employ
ee
49.2%
17.8%
13.4%12.1%
3.7%2.5% 1.8%
Source of Tips
P
ercentofTips
Sore o Tips
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
18/84
18 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Dcn Md Bad n organzan ty
The chart on page 19 shows how rauds were detected based on the victims organization type. We see that privately
owned companies tended to have the ewest rauds detected by tip and the most rauds caught by accident, both o
which were also true in our 2008 study. Publicly held companies tended to detect more rauds by management review
and internal audit than their counterparts. Government agencies had the highest rate o detection by tips and had a pro-
portionately high rate o rauds caught through external audit.
Dcng Fraud n small BunSmall businesses historically tend to suer disproportionately high occupational raud losses, according to our previ-
ous reports. The trend was not as pronounced in this study as in past years, but we still saw that 31% o all occupa-
tional rauds were committed against small businesses (the highest rate o any category) and the median loss in those
schemes was $155,000 (see page 29). One reason that small businesses are particularly good targets or occupational
raud is that they tend to have ar ewer anti-raud controls than larger organizations (see page 39).
Dcn Fraud scm
Impat o Hotines
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Organizations With Hotlines
Organizations Without Hotlines
Confession
Notified by Police
IT Controls
External Audit
Surveillance/Monitoring
Document Examination
By Accident
Account Reconcilliation
Management Review
Internal Audit
Tip
Percent of Cases
DetectionMethod
47.1%
33.8%
15.7%
15.7%
16.5%
11.2%
4.6%
4.7%
7.8%
3.7%
1.4%
3.0%
1.0%
0.9%
1.4%
2.2%
2.3%
1.1%
0.4%
6.5%
7.3%
11.9%
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
19/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
When we look at how small businesses detect rauds, it is apparent that they catch a much lower proportion o schemes
through tips or internal audits than larger organizations. According to the chart on page 20, only 33% o small business
rauds are detected by a tip, and only 8% are detected by an internal audit. Additionally, a relatively large percentageo rauds are caught by accident at small companies nearly twice as many as at larger organizations. Many o these
discrepancies are likely due to the low rates o control implementation at small businesses.
Initia detetion Metho y Organization Type
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Government
Public Company
Private Company
Not-for-Profit
IT Controls
Confession
Notified by Police
Surveillance/Monitoring
External Audit
Document Examination
Account Reconcilliation
By Accident
Internal Audit
Management Review
Tip
Percent of Cases
DetectionMethod
43.2%
13.0%
10.7%
6.5%
8.9%
6.5%
6.5%
1.2%
1.8%
1.2%
0.6%
15.4%
11.6%
11.2%
8.2%
6.0%
5.2%
2.6%
2.5%
1.0%
0.5%
17.6%
16.7%
6.8%
3.9%
5.0%
2.3%
3.0%
1.2%
1.1%
1.2%
11.6%
15.1%
5.3%
4.6%
3.9%
7.4%
2.8%
1.4%
1.4%
0.4%
35.8%41.1%
46.3%
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
20/84
20 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Dcn Fraud scm
Initia detetion o Fras in Sma bsinesses
Dcn occuanal Fraud Bad n Rgn
The ollowing charts show how rauds were detected based on the region in which they occurred.7 In every region, tips
were responsible or detecting the most occupational rauds by a wide margin. The percentage o cases detected by tips
ranged rom a high o 50% (in Arica) to a low o 38% (in the United States). In all but two regions, management review
and internal audit were the second and third most common means o detection, ollowing tips.
detetion in the unite States 1,001 cases
7See Appendix or a listing o countries included in each region.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
100+ Employees
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
21/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
detetion in Asia 293 cases
detetion in Erope 155 cases
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
IT Controls
Notified by PoliceConfession
Surveillance/Monitoring
Document Examination
Account Reconciliation
External Audit
By Accident
Management Review
Internal Audit
Tip 42.3%
11.3%
14.3%
8.9%
5.5%
4.4%
5.8%
2.7%
1.7%
2.4%
0.7%
Percent of Cases
D
etectionMethod
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Confession
IT Controls
Notified by Police
Surveillance/Monitoring
External Audit
Document Examination
Account Reconciliation
By Accident
Management Review
Internal Audit
Tip 40.0%
16.1%
17.4%
6.5%
5.8%
5.2%
3.9%
3.2%
1.3%
0.0%
0.6%
Percent of Cases
DetectionMethod
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
22/84
22 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Dcn Fraud scm
detetion in Aria 111 cases
detetion in canaa 97 cases
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
IT Controls
ConfessionDocument Examination
External Audit
Notified by Police
Surveillance/Monitoring
Account Reconciliation
By Accident
Internal Audit
Management Review
Tip 49.5%
11.7%
9.9%
9.0%
6.3%
0.9%
1.8%
5.4%
4.5%
0.9%
0.0%
Percent of Cases
D
etectionMethod
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
IT Controls
Confession
Notified by Police
Surveillance/Monitoring
External Audit
Document Examination
By Accident
Account Reconciliation
Internal Audit
Management Review
Tip 46.4%
15.5%
12.4%
5.2%
6.2%
4.1%
4.1%
4.1%
1.0%
1.0%
0.0%
Percent of Cases
DetectionMethod
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
23/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
detetion in centra/Soth Ameria an the cariean 70 cases
detetion in Oeania 40 cases
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
IT Controls
By AccidentNotified by Police
Confession
Surveillance/Monitoring
Document Examination
Account Reconciliation
Internal Audit
External Audit
Management Review
Tip 44.3%
14.3%
10.0%
0.0%
8.6%
4.3%
12.9%
4.3%
0.0%
1.4%
0.0%
Percent of Cases
D
etectionMethod
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
IT Controls
Confession
Notified by Police
Document Examination
External Audit
Account Reconciliation
Surveillance/Monitoring
Internal Audit
By Accident
Management Review
Tip 45.0%
20.0%
10.0%
12.5%
2.5%
0.0%
2.5%
7.5%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Percent of Cases
DetectionMethod
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
24/84
24 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Ggracal Lcan organzan
As mentioned previously, or the rst time in the history
o our research on occupational raud, we opened up our
study to include raud cases investigated by CFEs out-
side the United States. As a result, the cases discussed in
this Report represent rauds perpetrated in 106 countries
around the world. We received inormation on the location
o 1,797 o the cases that were reported to us. O these,
43% occurred outside the United States, providing us with
a true insight into the global plague o occupational raud.
The chart below shows the number and median loss o
the cases reported to us, broken down by region. For vic-
tim organizations with locations in more than one coun-
try, we asked survey participants to choose the location
where the primary perpetrator was located. For example,
a raud perpetrated at a European arm o a Japanese com-
pany would be classied as occurring in Europe. Similarly,
a case involving raud perpetrated at the Canadian oce
o a South American company would be considered a
raud that occurred in Canada. The regional breakdowns
on case data throughout this Report should consequently
be read within this ramework. Additionally, due to the
large number o U.S. cases reported, we separated North
America into the United States and Canada, and grouped
the remaining countries by continent.
Vcm organzan
Geographia loation o Vitim Organizations8
Rgn Numbr Ca prcn Ca Mdan L (n U.s. dllar)
United States 1,021 56.8% $105,000
Asia 298 16.6% $274,000
Europe 157 8.7% $600,000
Arica 112 6.2% $205,000
Canada 99 5.5% $125,000
Central/South America and the Caribbean 70 3.9% $186,000
Oceania 40 2.2% $338,000
8See Appendix or a listing o countries included in each region.
As part of our survey, we asked
each respondent to provide
demographic information
about the organization that
was defrauded.
Small organizations are particularlyvulnerable to fraud.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
25/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
The ollowing tables illustrate the requency o the 11 occupational raud schemes nancial statement raud, corrup-
tion and the nine asset misappropriation sub-schemes or each region.9
unite States 1,021 cases
scmNumbr
Ca
prcn
Ca
Billing 282 27.6%
Corruption 224 21.9%
Check Tampering 173 16.9%
Skimming 165 16.2%
Non-Cash 160 15.7%
Expense Reimbursements 154 15.1%
Cash on Hand 117 11.5%
Payroll 108 10.6%
Cash Larceny 98 9.6%
Financial Statement Fraud 44 4.3%
Register Disbursements 25 2.4%
Erope 157 cases
scm Numbr Ca prcn Ca
Corruption 79 50.3%
Billing 41 26.1%
Non-Cash 31 19.7%
Expense Reimbursements 24 15.3%
Cash on Hand 23 14.6%
Skimming 17 10.8%
Cash Larceny 12 7.6%
Financial Statement Fraud 10 6.4%
Payroll 10 6.4%
Register Disbursements 7 4.5%
Check Tampering 5 3.2%
Asia 298 cases
scmNumbr
Ca
prcn
Ca
Corruption 152 51.0%
Billing 56 18.8%
Non-Cash 55 18.5%
Expense Reimbursements 43 14.4%
Skimming 38 12.8%
Cash on Hand 34 11.4%
Cash Larceny 26 8.7%
Financial Statement Fraud 21 7.0%
Check Tampering 21 7.0%
Payroll 12 4.0%
Register Disbursements 6 2.0%
Aria 112 cases
scm Numbr Ca prcn Ca
Corruption 55 49.1%
Billing 38 33.9%
Non-Cash 24 21.4%
Expense Reimbursements 19 17.0%
Cash on Hand 16 14.3%
Cash Larceny 15 13.4%
Skimming 13 11.6%
Check Tampering 11 9.8%
Payroll 6 5.4%
Register Disbursements 3 2.7%
Financial Statement Fraud 2 1.8%
9The sum o percentages in these tables exceeds 100% because several casesinvolved schemes rom more than one category.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
26/84
26 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
corrption cases y Region
Rgn Numbr Crrun Ca prcn all Ca n Rgn Mdan L
Asia 152 51.0% $330,000
Europe 79 50.3% $1,000,000
Arica 55 49.1% $208,000
Central/South America and the Caribbean 33 47.1% $250,000
Oceania 16 40.0% $800,000
United States 224 21.9% $175,000
Canada 21 21.2% $163,000
Vcm organzan
canaa 99 cases
scmNumbr
Ca
prcn
Ca
Billing 21 21.2%
Corruption 21 21.2%
Expense Reimbursements 20 20.2%
Check Tampering 17 17.2%
Non-Cash 15 15.2%
Payroll 12 12.1%
Skimming 12 12.1%
Cash Larceny 10 10.1%
Cash on Hand 9 9.1%
Register Disbursements 8 8.1%
Financial Statement Fraud 2 2.0%
Oeania 40 cases
scmNumbr
Ca
prcn
Ca
Corruption 16 40.0%
Non-Cash 12 30.0%
Billing 11 27.5%
Check Tampering 7 17.5%
Skimming 5 12.5%
Cash on Hand 4 10.0%
Expense Reimbursements 4 10.0%
Cash Larceny 3 7.5%
Payroll 2 5.0%
Register Disbursements 1 2.5%
Financial Statement Fraud 1 2.5%
centra/Soth Ameria an the cariean 70 cases
scmNumbr
Ca
prcn
Ca
Corruption 33 47.1%
Billing 20 28.6%
Non-Cash 13 18.6%
Cash Larceny 10 14.3%
Skimming 9 12.9%
Cash on Hand 8 11.4%
Expense Reimbursements 8 11.4%
Financial Statement Fraud 7 10.0%
Check Tampering 6 8.6%
Payroll 3 4.3%
Register Disbursements 1 1.4%
Crrun Ca by Rgn
We compared the proportion and cost o cases involving
corruption among the regional categories in our study. The
results are presented in the ollowing table.
Readers should keep in mind that this data does not neces-
sarily refect overall corruption levels within each region; it
only refects the specic raud cases that were investigated
and reported to us by the CFEs who took part in our study.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
27/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
ty organzan
More than 40% o victim organizations in our study were privately owned businesses, and nearly one-third were publicly
traded companies, meaning that almost three-quarters o the victims represented in our study came rom or-prot enter-
prises. Sixteen percent o the rauds reported to us occurred at government agencies. Not-or-prot organizations were the
least represented category, with less than 10% o rauds taking place at these entities.
In addition to experiencing the most rauds, private and public companies were also victim to the costliest schemes in
our study; the median loss or the cases at these businesses was $231,000 and $200,000, respectively (see page 28).
In contrast, the losses experienced by government agencies and not-or-prot organizations were about hal as much.
Government agencies had a median loss o $100,000, while not-or-prots lost a median o $90,000.
Organization Type o Vitim Freqeny
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
2010
2008
Not-for-Profit
Government
Public Company
Private Company39.1%
28.4%
32.1%
14.3%
42.1%
16.3%
18.1%
9.6%
Percent of Cases
TypeofVictimO
rganization
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
28/84
28 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Vcm organzan
Organization Type o Vitim Meian loss
Continuing the trend observed in our prior studies, small
organizations those with ewer than 100 employees
suered the greatest percentage o the rauds in our 2010
study, accounting or more than 30% o the victim orga-
nizations. However, the variation between size categories
is relatively small, with 23% o victims having between
100 and 999 employees, 26% having 1,000 to 9,999 em-
ployees and 21% having more than 10,000 employees.
This relatively small disparity contrasts with our previous
studies, in which small organizations were involved in a
much higher percent o rauds than any other category.
Additionally, our research has historically shown that
smaller organizations suer disproportionately large loss-
es due to occupational raud. Organizations with ewer
than 100 employees experienced the greatest median
loss o all categories o victim organizations in our 2008
study. The same was true in our 2006 study. However,
that was not the case when we looked at the ull body
o data rom our current survey. Consequently, we under-
took additional analyses to see what eect, i any, the in-
clusion o cases rom countries outside the United States
had on these ndings.
sz organzan
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000
2010
2008
Not-for-Profit
Government
Public Company
Private Company$231,000
$278,000
$200,000
$142,000
$100,000
$100,000
$109,000
$90,000
Median Loss
TypeofVic
timO
rganization
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
29/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Size o Vitim Organization Freqeny
Size o Vitim Organization Meian loss
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000
2010
2008
10,000+
1,000 9,999
100 999
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
30/84
30 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Vcm organzan
I we make a direct comparison o the U.S. cases rom our current study to the data rom 2008, we can see that, though
the median loss in each category is smaller absolutely, the median losses suered by the smallest organizations are
greater than those suered by larger organizations. This nding is similar to our observations in previous studies and
suggests that small companies in the United States are indeed disproportionately harmed by occupational raud.
Size o Vitim Organization (u.S. ases ony) Meian loss
An analysis o the nature o losses at small businesses becomes more interesting when we expand our examination to each
region represented. For the rauds perpetrated in Europe, Asia, Canada and the United States, the median losses were signi-
cantly greater at small organizations than at those with more than 100 employees. Conversely, the median losses experienced by
small organizations in Central/South America and the Caribbean, Arica and Oceania were notably less than those experienced
by their larger counterparts.
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000
2010 (U.S. only)
2008
10,000+
1,000 9,999
100 999
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
31/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Size o Vitim Organizations Meian loss y Region
Md Fraud n small Bun
Because the challenges aced by small businesses in
combating occupational raud are numerous and unique,
it is helpul to know the types o rauds that are most
prevalent within these organizations. Such observations
may help small businesses target their limited resources
to those areas that pose the greatest risk.
O course, the specic risks aced by any organization are
largely dependent on its particular industry, operating envi-
ronment, processes, culture and many other actors. None-
theless, examining which raud schemes are most com-
monly perpetrated at small companies can aid us in better
understanding the raud issues aced by these businesses.
Sma bsinesses(
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
32/84
32 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Vcm organzan
As the chart below illustrates, check tampering schemes were much more common at small organizations than at all
other entities. Skimming and payroll rauds were also more common in small organizations. These trends stand to rea-
son, as the unctions aected by such schemes the check writing, cash collection and payroll unctions, respectively
are more likely to be perormed by a single individual, such as a bookkeeper, and are oten subject to less oversight
within a small organization than in a large company where duties are more segregated and authorization o transactions
is more ormalized. In contrast, although corruption schemes were the third most common raud scheme aced by small
businesses, they were less requent within small companies than in bigger organizations.
Methos o Fra y Size o Vitim Organization
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
33/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
indury organzan
We looked at the industry classication o the organizations victimized by the raud cases in our study. It is important to view
this data as a representation o the companies that had CFEs investigate internal raud cases within the last two years, rather
than as an indication o which industries are more or less likely to be victimized by raud. However, the ollowing tables do
draw attention to some dierences in the requency and cost associated with occupational rauds among dierent sectors.
For example, the banking and nancial services industry had the most cases, accounting or more than 16% o the rauds
reported to us. The period o time covered by our survey calendar years 2008 and 2009 was lled with news stories o
raud in the banking sector, so this nding is not unexpected. In contrast, the mining industry experienced the ewest rauds
in our study, but those cases caused a median loss o $1 million by ar the largest o any o the industries we examined.11
Instry o Vitim Organizations(sorte y Freqeny)
induryNumbr
Ca
prcn
Ca
Mdan
L
Banking/Financial Services 298 16.6% $175,000
Manuacturing 193 10.7% $300,000
Government and PublicAdministration
176 9.8% $81,000
Retail 119 6.6% $85,000
Healthcare 107 5.9% $150,000
Insurance 91 5.1% $197,000
Education 90 5.0% $71,000
Services (other) 88 4.9% $109,000
Construction 77 4.3% $200,000
Technology 65 3.6% $250,000
Transportation andWarehousing
62 3.4% $300,000
Oil and Gas 57 3.2% $478,000
Real Estate 57 3.2% $475,000
Services (proessional) 51 2.8% $110,000
Arts, Entertainment andRecreation
49 2.7% $180,000
Utilities 45 2.5% $120,000
Wholesale Trade 42 2.3% $513,000
Religious, Charitable orSocial Services
41 2.3% $75,000
Telecommunications 37 2.1% $131,000
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishingand Hunting
27 1.5% $320,000
Communications/Publishing 16 0.9% $110,000
Mining 12 0.7% $1,000,000
Instry o Vitim Organizations(sorte y Meian loss)
induryNumbr
Ca
prcn
Ca
Mdan
L
Mining 12 0.7% $1,000,000
Wholesale Trade 42 2.3% $513,000
Oil and Gas 57 3.2% $478,000
Real Estate 57 3.2% $475,000
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishingand Hunting
27 1.5% $320,000
Manuacturing 193 10.7% $300,000
Transportation andWarehousing
62 3.4% $300,000
Technology 65 3.6% $250,000
Construction 77 4.3% $200,000
Insurance 91 5.1% $197,000
Arts, Entertainment andRecreation
49 2.7% $180,000
Banking/Financial Services 298 16.6% $175,000
Healthcare 107 5.9% $150,000
Telecommunications 37 2.1% $131,000
Utilities 45 2.5% $120,000
Services (proessional) 51 2.8% $110,000
Communications/Publishing 16 0.9% $110,000
Services (other) 88 4.9% $109,000
Retail 119 6.6% $85,000
Government and PublicAdministration
176 9.8% $81,000
Religious, Charitable or SocialServices
41 2.3% $75,000
Education 90 5.0% $71,000
11There was a small sample o only 12 cases in this industry, which may impact the reliability o the median loss data.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
34/84
34 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
banking/Finania Servies 298 cases
scm Number of Cases prcn Ca
Corruption 101 33.9%
Cash on Hand 64 21.5%
Billing 37 12.4%
Check Tampering 35 11.7%
Non-Cash 33 11.1%
Skimming 32 10.7%
Larceny 29 9.7%
ExpenseReimbursements
20 6.7%
Financial Statement Fraud 16 5.4%
Payroll 9 3.0%
Register Disbursements 8 2.7%
Government an PiAministration 176 cases
scm Numbr Ca prcn Ca
Corruption 57 32.4%
Billing 43 24.4%
ExpenseReimbursements
32 18.2%
Non-Cash 30 17.0%Larceny 25 14.2%
Check Tampering 24 13.6%
Skimming 23 13.1%
Cash on Hand 21 11.9%
Payroll 20 11.4%
Financial Statement Fraud 5 2.8%
Register Disbursements 5 2.8%
Manatring 193 cases
scm Numbr Ca prcn Ca
Corruption 75 38.9%
Billing 73 37.8%
Non-Cash 45 23.3%
ExpenseReimbursements
43 22.3%
Check Tampering 22 11.4%
Skimming 20 10.4%
Payroll 20 10.4%
Cash on Hand 15 7.8%
Larceny 14 7.3%
Financial Statement Fraud 14 7.3%
Register Disbursements 2 1.0%
Retai 119 cases
scm Number of Cases prcn Ca
Non-Cash 39 32.8%
Corruption 26 21.8%
Skimming 19 16.0%
Larceny 17 14.3%
Billing 16 13.4%
Cash on Hand 16 13.4%
Register Disbursements 14 11.8%
Check Tampering 10 8.4%
ExpenseReimbursements
8 6.7%
Financial Statement Fraud 7 5.9%
Payroll 3 2.5%
12The sum o percentages in these tables exceeds 100% because several casesinvolved schemes rom more than one category.
Vcm organzan
In the ollowing tables, we have presented the distribution o raud schemes or all industries in which there were more
than 50 reported cases.12 Many o the ndings are not surprising. For example, thet o cash on hand which includes the
thet o cash rom a bank vault accounted or just 12% o all cases combined, but occurred in 22% o the cases involv-
ing the banking and nancial services industry. Similarly, both thet o non-cash assets and raudulent register disburse-
ments were much more common in the retail industry than in other sectors. This makes sense, as retail establishments
tend to have more inventory- and cash-register-based transactions than entities in other industries. Examining the variation
in schemes among industries underscores the need or organizations to consider the specic raud risks they ace when
determining which processes and unctions merit additional resources devoted to raud prevention and detection.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
35/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Heathare 107 casesscm Number of Cases prcn Ca
Corruption 31 29.0%
Skimming 24 22.4%
Billing 23 21.5%
Non-Cash 21 19.6%
Check Tampering 13 12.1%
ExpenseReimbursements
12 11.2%
Payroll 10 9.3%
Cash on Hand 9 8.4%
Larceny 8 7.5%
Financial Statement Fraud 4 3.7%
Register Disbursements 1 0.9%
Eation 90 casesscm Number of Cases prcn Ca
Billing 38 42.2%
Corruption 22 24.4%
Skimming 19 21.1%
ExpenseReimbursements
15 16.7%
Non-Cash 11 12.2%
Larceny 11 12.2%
Payroll 9 10.0%
Check Tampering 7 7.8%
Cash on Hand 7 7.8%
Financial Statement Fraud 1 1.1%
Register Disbursements 0 0.0%
constrtion 77 casesscm Number of Cases prcn Ca
Corruption 35 45.5%
Billing 23 29.9%Check Tampering 14 18.2%
Skimming 12 15.6%
Non-Cash 12 15.6%
ExpenseReimbursements
10 13.0%
Payroll 7 9.1%
Larceny 7 9.1%
Financial Statement Fraud 4 5.2%
Cash on Hand 3 3.9%
Register Disbursements 0 0.0%
Insrane 91 casesscm Number of Cases prcn Ca
Corruption 30 33.0%
Billing 19 20.9%
Check Tampering 15 16.5%
Skimming 13 14.3%
Non-Cash 9 9.9%
Cash on Hand 9 9.9%
Larceny 8 8.8%
Expense
Reimbursements
7 7.7%
Payroll 6 6.6%
Financial Statement Fraud 3 3.3%
Register Disbursements 3 3.3%
Servies (other) 88 casesscm Number of Cases prcn Ca
Corruption 25 28.4%
Skimming 22 25.0%
Billing 22 25.0%
Check Tampering 14 15.9%
Payroll 13 14.8%
ExpenseReimbursements
12 13.6%
Non-Cash 11 12.5%
Larceny 9 10.2%
Cash on Hand 8 9.1%
Financial Statement Fraud 7 8.0%
Register Disbursements 5 5.7%
Tehnoogy 65 casesscm Number of Cases prcn Ca
Corruption 28 43.1%
Billing 19 29.2%
ExpenseReimbursements
17 26.2%
Non-Cash 16 24.6%
Check Tampering 10 15.4%
Financial Statement Fraud 10 15.4%
Skimming 6 9.2%
Cash on Hand 5 7.7%
Payroll 4 6.2%
Larceny 4 6.2%
Register Disbursements 2 3.1%
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
36/84
36 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Transportation an Warehousing 62 cases
scm Numbr Ca prcn Ca
Corruption 22 35.5%
Billing 20 32.3%
Non-Cash 16 25.8%
Payroll 9 14.5%
Skimming 8 12.9%
Larceny 7 11.3%
Financial StatementFraud
5 8.1%
Check Tampering 5 8.1%
ExpenseReimbursements
5 8.1%
Cash on Hand 4 6.5%
Register Disbursements 0 0.0%
Real Estate 57 cases
scm Numbr Ca prcn Ca
Billing 19 33.3%
Check Tampering 18 31.6%
Corruption 12 21.1%
Expense
Reiumbursements
12 21.1%
Skimming 11 19.3%
Larceny 9 15.8%
Payroll 8 14.0%
Cash on Hand 8 14.0%
Non-Cash 7 12.3%
Financial StatementFraud
2 3.5%
Register Disbursements 0 0.0%
Oil an Gas 57 cases
scm Numbr Ca prcn Ca
Corruption 31 54.4%
Billing 18 31.6%
ExpenseReimbursements
9 15.8%
Non-Cash 8 14.0%
Check Tampering 6 10.5%
Skimming 4 7.0%
Cash on Hand 4 7.0%
Larceny 3 5.3%
Financial StatementFraud
2 3.5%
Payroll 2 3.5%
Register Disbursements 0 0.0%
Servies (professional) 51 cases
scm Number of Cases prcn Ca
Billing 15 29.4%
ExpenseReiumbursements
14 27.5%
Check Tampering 12 23.5%
Skimming 9 17.6%
Corruption 6 11.8%
Payroll 5 9.8%
Cash on Hand 5 9.8%
Larceny 5 9.8%
Financial StatementFraud
4 7.8%
Non-Cash 2 3.9%
Register Disbursements 0 0.0%
Vcm organzan
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
37/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Crrun Ca by indury
Just as corruption is oten observed to be particularly prominent in specic regions, certain industries are requently
thought to be more susceptible to corrupt business practices than others. For example, the mining, oil and gas, and con-
struction industries all appear in the top ve sectors or both bribery and state capture (two types o corrupt practices)
in Transparency Internationals2008 Bribe Payers Index.13 These three industries had three o the our highest rates o
corruption cases in our study. More than 45% o the rauds that occurred in these industries, along with those in the
wholesale trade sector, involved some orm o corruption.
corrption cases y Instryindury Numbr Ca Number of Corruton Cases prcn Crrun Ca
Mining 12 7 58.3%
Oil and Gas 57 31 54.4%
Wholesale Trade 42 20 47.6%
Construction 77 35 45.5%
Technology 65 28 43.1%
Manuacturing 193 75 38.9%
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 27 10 37.0%
Utilities 45 16 35.6%
Transportation and Warehousing 62 22 35.5%
Banking/Financial Services 298 101 33.9%
Insurance 91 30 33.0%
Government and Public Administration 176 57 32.4%
Communications/Publishing 16 5 31.3%
Healthcare 107 31 29.0%
Services (other) 88 25 28.4%
Arts, Entertainment and Recreation 49 13 26.5%
Education 90 22 24.4%
Retail 119 26 21.8%
Telecommunications 37 8 21.6%
Real Estate 27 12 21.1%
Religious, Charitable or Social Services 41 6 14.6%
Services (proessional) 51 6 11.8%
13Transparency International, 2008 Bribe Payers Index (Berlin: Transparency International, 2008). http://www.transparency.org/content/download/39275/622457
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
38/84
38 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
An-Fraud Cnrl a Vcm organzan
We asked survey participants which o several common anti-raud controls were in place at the victim organization during
the perpetration o the raud. A distinction should be made between the ollowing data and the prior discussion on raud
detection methods. The ollowing analysis covers the mere presence o each control not necessarily its role in detect-
ing the raud once it started. More than three-quarters o the victim organizations in our study had their nancial statements
audited by external auditors, while two-thirds had dedicated internal audit or raud examination departments, and almost 60%
had independent audits o their internal controls over nancial reporting. Additionally, nearly 70% o the organizations had a
ormal code o conduct in place at the time o the raud, though only 39% extended that to include a ormal anti-raud policy.
As mentioned in our discussion on raud detection methods (see page 16), tips are the number one means by which raud
is detected. However, less than hal o the victim organizations in our study had a hotline in place at the time the raud oc-
curred. There is evidence that the presence o a hotline improves organizations ability to detect raud and limit raud losses
(see page 43), which should cause more organizations to implement raud hotlines.
Vcm organzan
Freqeny o Anti-Fra contros14
14The sum o percentages in this chart exceeds 100% because many victim organizations had more than one anti-raud control in place at the time o the raud.
15KeY:
External Audit o F/S = Independent external audits o the organizations nancial statements
Internal Audit / FE Department = Internal audit department or raud examination department
External Audit o ICOFR = Independent audits o the organizations internal controls over nancial reportingManagement Certication o F/S = Management certication o the organizations nancial statements
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%Rewards for Whistleblowers
Job Rotation/Mandatory Vacation
Surprise Audits
Anti-Fraud Policy
Fraud Training for Employees
Fraud Training for Managers/Executives
Employee Support Programs
Hotline
Independent Audit Committee
Management Review
Management Certification of F/S
External Audit of ICOFR
Internal Audit/FE Department
Code of Conduct
External Audit of F/S 76.1%
69.9%
66.4%
59.3%
58.9%
53.3%
53.2%
48.6%
44.8%
41.5%
39.6%
39.0%
28.9%
14.6%
7.4%
Percent of Cases
Anti-Fraud
Control15
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
39/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
An-Fraud Cnrl a small Bun
We have long hypothesized that many small companies are particularly susceptible to raud at least partially due to the
limited resources they devote to anti-raud controls. To test this theory, we compared the presence o anti-raud controls at
those companies with ewer than 100 employees to the controls at companies with more than 100 employees. Our ndings
conrm what we suspected: The small companies in our study did indeed have ewer controls in place than the larger orga-
nizations, a actor that may contribute to the disproportionate impact o raud on these companies. While discrepancies in
levels o certain controls are somewhat expected given the associated costs or resources required to enact them, the gap
between controls in small businesses as opposed to larger organizations is striking. For example, it would be expected that
small businesses would have a lower rate o external audits and that ewer small companies would have a ormal internal
audit or raud examination unction. But even less expensive controls were oten absent in small businesses. While 64% o
large companies had some sort o management review o controls, processes, accounts or transactions, less than hal as
many small businesses had the same type o monitoring in place. Likewise, ormal codes o conduct and anti-raud policies
cost very little to implement, but serve as an eective way to make a clear and explicit statement against raudulent and
unethical conduct within an organization. Yet only 41% and 16% o small businesses had these policies (respectively) in
place when the raud occurred numbers dwared by the 83% and 50% rates o larger organizations.
Perhaps most concerning is that only 15% o small businesses had a hotline in place, compared to 64% o larger orga-
nizations. As previously discussed, our research shows that hotlines are consistently the most eective raud detection
method. Further, as discussed on page 43, the median loss or rauds at companies with hotlines was 59% smaller than
the median loss or rauds at organizations without such a mechanism. Arguably, enacting hotlines would go a long wayin helping small-business owners protect their assets rom dishonest employees.
Freqeny o Anti-Fra contros y Size o Vitim Organization
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
100+ Employees
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
40/84
40 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
An-Fraud Cnrl by Rgn
To examine how organizations in dierent regions approached the ght against raud, we analyzed the presence o
controls in victim organizations based on where they were located. The ollowing tables illustrate the percentage o
organizations within each region that had the corresponding control in place at the time o the raud.
It is interesting to note the variations in use o controls by region. Specically, or some anti-raud controls, the propor-
tion o victim organizations utilizing the control was markedly greater in regions containing developing countries than in
those regions primarily made up o developed nations. For example, the organizations in Central/South America and the
Caribbean had the highest rate o external audits o both nancial statements and internal controls over nancial report-
ing, as well as o hotlines. Similarly, codes o conduct, internal audit or raud examination departments, management
certication o nancial statements, independent audit committees, anti-raud policies and rewards or whistleblowers
were all most common among the Arican organizations in our study, and management review, surprise audits and job
rotation or mandatory vacation policies were most oten implemented by Asian organizations. On the opposite end o
the spectrum, the United States had the lowest rate o presence or several o these controls.
Vcm organzan
Externa Ait o Finania Statements
Rgn prcn Ca
Central/South America and the Caribbean 87.1%
Europe 86.0%
Arica 85.7%
Asia 83.9%
Canada 80.8%
Oceania 75.0%
United States 70.4%
Internal Auit/Frau Examination department
Rgn prcn Ca
Arica 84.8%
Europe 76.4%
Asia 73.2%
Central/South America and the Caribbean 72.9%
Canada 61.6%
United States 60.9%
Oceania 50.0%
coe o cont
Rgn prcn Ca
Arica 80.4%
Central/South America and the Caribbean 74.3%
Europe 73.9%
Canada 73.7%
Oceania 72.5%
Asia 68.5%
United States 68.0%
Externa Ait o IcOFR16
Rgn prcn Ca
Central/South America and the Caribbean 65.7%
Asia 64.4%
Arica 64.3%
United States 58.2%
Canada 57.6%
Europe 56.7%
Oceania 52.5%
16External Audit o ICOFR = Independent audits o the organizations internal controlsover nancial reporting.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
41/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Management certifationo Finania Statements
Rgn prcn Ca
Arica 68.8%
Canada 65.7%
Oceania 65.0%
Asia 62.8%
Europe 62.4%
United States 56.0%
Central/South America and Caribbean 51.4%
Inepenent Ait committee
Rgn prcn Ca
Arica 63.4%
Canada 59.6%
Oceania 57.5%
Asia 54.7%
Central/South America and Caribbean 54.3%
Europe 54.1%
United States 50.8%
Empoyee Spport Programs
Rgn prcn Ca
Canada 57.6%
United States 54.8%
Oceania 45.0%
Arica 38.4%
Central/South America and Caribbean 30.0%
Europe 28.0%
Asia 22.5%
Fra Training or Empoyees
Rgn prcn Ca
United States 42.7%
Arica 39.3%
Europe 37.6%
Asia 37.2%
Central/South America and Caribbean 32.9%
Canada 29.3%
Oceania 22.5%
Management Review
Rgn prcn Ca
Asia 59.4%
Europe 54.8%
Canada 53.5%
Arica 52.7%
Oceania 52.5%
United States 51.6%
Central/South America and Caribbean 50.0%
Hotine
Rgn prcn Ca
Central/South America and Caribbean 52.9%
United States 52.0%
Arica 47.3%
Europe 45.9%
Asia 43.3%
Canada 41.4%
Oceania 25.0%
Fra Training orManagers/Exetives
Rgn prcn Ca
United States 44.5%
Arica 41.1%
Asia 40.9%
Europe 37.6%
Central/South America and Caribbean 37.1%
Canada 30.3%
Oceania 25.0%
Anti-Fra Poiy
Rgn prcn Ca
Arica 49.1%
United States 38.7%
Central/South America and Caribbean 38.6%
Canada 38.4%
Asia 36.6%
Europe 36.3%
Oceania 32.5%
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
42/84
42 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
Srprise Aits
Rgn prcn Ca
Asia 39.3%
Arica 30.4%
Canada 28.3%
United States 27.2%
Europe 24.8%
Central/South America and Caribbean 24.3%
Oceania 15.0%
Rewars or Whisteowers
Rgn prcn Ca
Arica 9.8%
Asia 9.4%
United States 7.4%
Central/South America and Caribbean 5.7%
Canada 4.0%
Europe 3.8%
Oceania 2.5%
Jo Rotation/Manatory Vaation
Rgn prcn Ca
Asia 21.8%
Arica 20.5%
Europe 14.0%
Canada 13.1%
United States 12.6%
Central/South America and Caribbean 11.4%
Oceania 5.0%
Vcm organzan
ecvn Cnrl
We compared the median loss experienced by those organizations that had a particular anti-raud control against the
median loss or those organizations without that control at the time o the raud. Hotlines were the control with the great-
est associated reduction in median loss, reinorcing their value as an eective anti-raud measure. Employee support
programs, surprise audits and raud training or sta members at all levels were also associated with median loss reduc-
tions o more than 50%. Interestingly, nancial statement audits the most commonly implemented control was
among the controls with the smallest associated reduction in median loss.
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
43/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Meian loss base on Presene o Anti-Fra controsCnrl17 prcn Ca imlmnd Cnrl n plac Cnrl N n plac prcn Rducn
Hotline 48.6% $100,000 $245,000 59.2%
Employee Support Programs 44.8% $100,000 $244,000 59.0%
Surprise Audits 28.9% $97,000 $200,000 51.5%
Fraud Training or Employees 39.6% $100,000 $200,000 50.0%
Fraud Training or Managers/Execs 41.5% $100,000 $200,000 50.0%
Job Rotation/Mandatory Vacation 14.6% $100,000 $188,000 46.8%
Code o Conduct 69.9% $140,000 $262,000 46.6%
Anti-Fraud Policy 39.0% $120,000 $200,000 40.0%
Management Review 53.3% $120,000 $200,000 40.0%
External Audit o ICOFR 59.3% $140,000 $215,000 34.9%
Internal Audit/FE Department 66.4% $145,000 $209,000 30.6%
Independent Audit Committee 53.2% $140,000 $200,000 30.0%
Management Certication o F/S 58.9% $150,000 $200,000 25.0%
External Audit o F/S 76.1% $150,000 $200,000 25.0%
Rewards or Whistleblowers 7.4% $119,000 $155,000 23.2%
Similarly, we compared the duration o raud schemes at organizations with and without anti-raud controls. As refected
in the table below, the presence o each control correlated with a reduction in the duration o raud. We ound it interest-
ing that the controls associated with the greatest reduction in scheme lengths are not the same as the ones that had the
most impact on median loss.
dration base on Presene o Anti-Fra controsCnrl17 prcn Ca imlmnd Cnrl n plac Cnrl N n plac prcn Rducn
Management Review 53.3% 12 months 24 months 50.0%
Internal Audit/FE Department 66.4% 14 months 24 months 41.7%
External Audit o ICOFR 59.3% 15 months 24 months 37.5%
Code o Conduct 69.9% 15 months 24 months 37.5%
Surprise Audits 28.9% 12 months 19 months 36.8%
Hotline 48.6% 13 months 20 months 35.0%
Management Certication o F/S 58.9% 15 months 23 months 34.8%
Rewards or Whistleblowers 7.4% 12 months 18 months 33.3%Job Rotation/Mandatory Vacation 14.6% 12 months 18 months 33.3%
External Audit o F/S 76.1% 16 months 24 months 33.3%
Anti-Fraud Policy 39.0% 13 months 18 months 27.8%
Fraud Training or Employees 39.6% 13 months 18 months 27.8%
Fraud Training or Managers/Execs 41.5% 13 months 18 months 27.8%
Independent Audit Committee 53.2% 15 months 20 months 25.0%
Employee Support Programs 44.8% 15 months 18 months 16.7%
17KeY:
External Audit o F/S = Independent external audits o the organizations nancial statements
Internal Audit / FE Department = Internal audit department or raud examination department
External Audit o ICOFR = Independent audits o the organizations internal controls over nancial reporting
Management Certication o F/S = Management certication o the organizations nancial statements
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
44/84
44 | 2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE
imranc Cnrl n Dcng r Lmng Fraud
Not all controls are eective against all rauds. Most control mechanisms are more likely to detect or deter some raud
schemes than others. Likewise, some perpetrators are more adept than others at circumventing particular controls, and
some controls are more susceptible to being overridden than others.
We thought it useul to examine which controls had the greatest eect on the rauds reported in our study. We asked the
CFEs who took part in our survey to rank the importance o several anti-raud controls in detecting or limiting the raud.
The ollowing chart shows the respondents opinions regarding each controls useulness.
Vcm organzan
Importane o contro in deteting or limiting Fra
18
KeY:External Audit o F/S = Independent external audits o the organizations nancial statements
Internal Audit / FE Department = Internal audit department or raud examination department
External Audit o ICOFR = Independent audits o the organizations internal controls over nancial reporting
Management Certication o F/S = Management certication o the organizations nancial statements
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Not at all Important
Somewhat Important
Very Important
External Audit of F/S
External Auditof ICOFR
Rewards forWhistleblowers
Hotline
Job Rotation/Mandatory Vacation
Surprise Audits
Management Review
Internal Audit/FE Department
Percent of Respondents
Control18
60.8%
50.3%
49.0%
42.0%
41.3%
38.3%
36.0%32.4%
29.4%
31.5%
40.7%
45.4%
27.9%23.0%
24.5%
17.9%
25.3%21.4%
25.7%
25.3%31.2%
19.3%
23.5%
19.2%
8/9/2019 ACFE Report to the Nation-2010
45/84
2010 RepoRt to the NAtioNs ON OccuPATIONAl FRAUD ANd AbuSE |
Cnrl Wakn ta Cnrbud Fraud
We also asked survey respondents to identiy which o several common issues they considered to be the primary actor that
allowed the raud to occur. A lack o internal controls, such as segregation o duties, was cited as the biggest deciency in 38%
o the cases. In more than 19% o the cases, internal controls were in place but were overridden by the perpetrator or perpetra-
tors in order to commit and conceal the raud. Interestingly, even though hotlines are cons