+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given...

Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given...

Date post: 13-Sep-2019
Category:
Upload: others
View: 0 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
54
Internal Controls for Governmental Entities Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks June 25, 2015 Sarah L. Jennings, CPA, CFE Principal Maner Costerisan
Transcript
Page 1: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Internal Controls for Governmental Entities

Michigan Association of Municipal Clerks June 25, 2015

Sarah L. Jennings, CPA, CFE

Principal Maner Costerisan

Page 2: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

What we will cover…

Trends of fraud schemes Common types of fraud What we can do Other Considerations Case Studies

Page 3: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

2014 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse

Typical organization loses an estimated 5% of annual revenues to occupational fraud

Organizations with < 100 employees had the highest frequency of fraud at 30.8%with a median loss of almost $154,000

Page 4: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

2014 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse

Billing schemes were cited as the most common scheme small organizations, in over 40% of cases Most common detection method in small organizations was tip (over 40%)

Page 5: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Victim Organizations – by Type

Page 6: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Victim Organizations – by Size

Page 7: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Victim Organizations – Scheme Type

Page 8: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Duration of Fraud by Scheme

Page 9: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Victim Organizations – Industry

Page 10: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Frequency of Scheme – Industry

Page 11: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

2014 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse

Most perpetrators (82% of cases) were NEVER charged or convicted

Hind site is 20/20 – there were red flags in over 92% of the cases

Living beyond their means Unusually close relationships with vendors Excessive control issues Financial difficulties

Page 12: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Red Flags

Page 13: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

What is going on out there???

Pressure/Need Rationalization

Opportunity

Page 14: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Common Types of Fraud Asset Misappropriation Corruption

Conflicts of Interest Bribery Illegal Gratuities Economic Extortion

Fraudulent Financial Reporting Financial Non-Financial

Page 15: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Common Types of Fraud – Asset Misappropriation

Cash Fraudulent Disbursements

Expense reimbursement and credit cards Purchasing and billing Check tampering Payroll

Larceny Skimming

Non-Cash Misuse Larceny

Page 16: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Corruption

• The wrongful use of influence to procure a benefit for the actor or another person, contrary to the duty or rights of others – Conflicts of interest – Bribery – Kickbacks – Illegal gratuities – Economic extortion

Page 17: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Corruption – conflict of interest

• Investment ownership in a supplier or competitor • Purchasing of goods or services through a broker

or middleman that the purchaser controls • Acceptance of inappropriate gifts • Involvement of other business ventures with

contractors • Purchaser enters into unapproved employment

negotiations with a contractor/supplier

Page 18: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Corruption – bribery

• Inappropriate or excessive gifts • “Loans” (whether repaid or not) or guarantees

of loans • Inappropriate or excessive favors • Personal discounts on items or services • Cash payments

Page 19: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Corruption – kickbacks

• Type of bribery • Personal kickbacks for directing excess

business to vendor • Vendor returning part of purchase price to

influence future purchases

Page 20: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Corruption – illegal gratuities

• Similar to bribery • Difference only in proof that gratuity was

given to influence an official act

Page 21: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Corruption – economic extortion

• The flipside of bribery • Government employee or official demands a

bribe or kickback for payment or contract

Page 22: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Red Flags of Corruption

• Internal • External • Analytical

Page 23: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Purchasing and Billing PROBLEM

False vendors Actual vendor, false charges Mailing address changes Personal purchases

Page 24: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Purchasing and Billing SOLUTION

• Thorough vendor approval process • Review for duplicate vendors • Compare vendor addresses to employee

addresses • Review reports for amounts under specified

threshold • Review year-to-date vendor payment totals

Page 25: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Non Cash Problem

• Theft or misuse of inventory, supplies or property of the Township

Page 26: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Non Cash Solution

• Periodic property verifications (fixed assets) • Supplies restriction and analysis • Periodic machine hour review

Page 27: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Payroll PROBLEM

Ghost employees Unauthorized hours Unauthorized rates

Page 28: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Payroll SOLUTION

• Review payroll register – specifically looking at year to date totals

• Hour approval at the appropriate level • Appropriate authorization and access levels

Page 29: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Expense Reimbursement and Credit/Purchase Card

PROBLEM • Educational books • http://www.salesreceiptstore.com/ • http://www.smileygenerator.us/fake_receipt/

Page 30: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Expense Reimbursement and Credit/Purchase Card

SOLUTION • Require detail receipts for all purchases • Require approval at a reporting level above

the employee • Periodic review of “black hole” accounts • Compare calendar to mileage/conference

Page 31: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Skimming PROBLEM

Theft before the revenue was recorded Fees collected and not received or recorded by the organization Cash collected for sales but the sale not recorded

Page 32: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Skimming SOLUTION

• Budget - have an expectation of revenue • Compare historical results for different time

periods (more than 1 event or period) • Reconcile cash timely • Require multiple individuals to count cash • Count down drawers daily, or at each shift

change if possible • Utilize a numerical sequence of receipts • Require sign off on all receipts

Page 33: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Larceny PROBLEM

Theft after the revenue was recorded Refunds entered Credits to receivables

Page 34: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Larceny SOLUTION

• Budget - have an expectation of revenue • Review refunds and credits issued monthly

(potentially more frequently to begin the process)

• Count down drawers daily, or at each shift change if possible in order to maintain accountability

Page 35: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Check Tampering PROBLEM

Forged authorized signature Altered payee Altered amount

Page 36: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Check Tampering SOLUTION

• Review cancelled checks periodically • Review for unusual check runs or manual

checks

Page 37: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

What we can do

Education and communication Internal Fraud Risk Assessment Documented Policies and Considerations

Page 38: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Education

Definitions Tone at the Top Report abuse

Perpetrator to authorities Scheme to colleagues

Repeat annually or with any turnover

Page 39: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Internal Fraud Risk Assessment

Employee Assessment Physical Controls Knowledge and Assessment of the Schemes Vulnerability Assessment

Receipts Disbursements Payroll

Page 40: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Questions to Ask Yourself Receipts

How would you know if something didn’t get there that should have?

Disbursements Who approves? Who signs? Who reviews what cleared the bank?

Reconciliation/Closing Who gets the statements or has access to online activity? Who compares the financial institution statements to the internal reports? Who sees cancelled check images?

Page 41: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Internal Controls - Receipts

Register sales reconciled at each shift change to drawer cash, at minimum on a daily basis Initial cash listing maintained for all cash and checks and reconciled to bank deposits Remote capture deposit utilized Receipts issued in sequential order Reconciliation of receivable aging monthly Accounts receivable clerk - restricted access to create new customer accounts

Page 42: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Internal Controls - Disbursements Established and documented procedures for new vendors

Accounts payable clerk – restricted access to create new vendors

Positive pay solutions with your financial institution Monthly review of vendor totals Dual signature requirements Review of vendor account details and transactions

Page 43: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Disbursements - Concluded After signature, checks not returned to the preparer Cancelled check images returned from the bank or available for review Payments made to employees reviewed for appropriate authorizations, by approved individual Supporting documentation required for all expense reimbursements and Township credit card charges

Page 44: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Internal Controls - Payroll

Payroll clerk - restricted access to HR module Cannot input new employees Cannot input rate changes

All time sheets approved at a level above the employee Review direct deposit listing – including account number

Page 45: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Payroll - Concluded

Review of payroll register Checks distributed by someone other than the payroll clerk Detail review of deductions report Detailed review of payments made on behalf of employees for retirement options

Page 46: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Internal Controls - Reconciliation/Closing

Journal entry control and review Who does them and what can they adjust?

Reconciliations reviewed and approved at an appropriate level and on a timely basis Documentation of all reviews Management should receive financial statements (activity as well as statement of position) monthly

Page 47: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Reconciliation/Closing - Concluded

Bank statements received by and reviewed at an appropriate level monthly (this can be accomplished via online accessibility) Cancelled checks compared to approved check registers Reconciliation of numerical check sequence

Page 48: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Internal Controls - Other

Review exception reports periodically Segregate duties when possible Designate a “watch-dog” over all significant procedures Consider read/view only access to financial information (on-line banking) as well as general ledger detail for management Approve electronic transfers at the appropriate level

Page 49: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Quick Controls that should be in Place

Management review of original financial institution statements; this can be accomplished with online accessibility; cancelled checks should be available Management review of receivable write offs or returns Management review of vendor totals Management review of payroll registers, W-2’s and 1099’s issued

Page 50: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Other Considerations

Check with your financial institution on what fraud prevention services they offer – many products were mentioned in the controls we have covered

Insurance Make sure it is adequate Read the fine print

Hotline Cost benefit analysis Consider access to internal and external stakeholders

Page 51: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Documented Policies • Financial policies and procedures

– Purchasing – Month end close

• Conflicts of interest • Document retention • Fraud prevention • Checklists documenting key controls and

approval

Page 52: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Case Studies

Page 53: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

To Wrap it Up

• Educate!

• Segregate!

• Recuperate!

Page 54: Internal Controls for Governmental Entities · • Difference only in proof that gratuity was given to influence an official act . Corruption – economic extortion • The flipside

Sarah L. Jennings (517) 886-9502

[email protected]

Questions?


Recommended