Fraud Advisory Services

Prevention is better than cure – would seem to make sense in the case of fraud as it is in the case of your health. Fraud can cause a company to lose a great deal of money, or worse collapse completely. A company collapse due to fraud can be avoided by putting in a few measures that would greatly reduce the risk of fraud can cost far less than this.

The first step to take is for a company to accept that it is at risk from fraud and the attention of the fraudster. Many organisations fail to even accept this, then are surprised to find a black hole in their finances of several £100,000s. They do not believe that any of their trusted staff could be a fraudster. Accepting that fraud is a very real risk is the first stage – deciding that fraud is not acceptable is the next.

A company must tell all its staff, and often customers and suppliers as well, that it does not tollerate fraud. This is the fraud policy. It can be set out in a document which is circulated to all staff. Big corporations will publish a glossy booklet, a small business can photocopy a simple typed page. The important point is to communicate that fraud is not accepted and if discovered, action will be taken. This in itself can have the effect of greatly reducing the risk of fraud happening.

The next critical step in preventing fraud is to ensure that any previous complacency does not creep back in. This means that all systems are reviewed on a regular basis for weaknesses to fraud. Auditors often review accounting controls once a year at the annual audit – this is not enough nor is it frequent enough. Accounting controls designed to keep a financial reporting system working well are not designed for preventing the determined fraudster. For example a control that requires two signatures on a document can easily be circumvented by collusion.

By understanding how an accounting control can be circumvented efficient measures can be introduced to ensure that the risk of this happening is low, and if it should, it will be discovered sooner rather than later. This takes a different mindset to that of an auditor, that of a fraud expert, such as a forensic accountant or fraud investigator is of course ideal.

If an employee steals from the organisation he or she is working for there are a number of ways in which this can be dealt with. The decision will no doubt be based on the organisation’s fraud policy and what it wants to achieve. Does it want its money back, to sack the fraudster or to make a public example of the issue? The alternatives include:

• Reporting the employee to the police – the police may or may not be interested. If they are – they may investigate. If they do, this can be disruptive to the business. Often however, given the shortage of police fraud investigation resources the response to a fraud report may well be a request to provide comprehensive details of the occurrence i.e. effectively to go and investigate the fraud yourselves!
• Commencing some form of disciplinary action in order to safely remove the fraudster from the business. This has to be done with care because inappropriate treatment of staff can lead to claims for unfair dismissal or constructive dismissal – even by the guilty fraudster!
• To investigate the fraud using internal or external resources with the view to instigating some form of civil litigation for recovery of the losses due to fraud.

Very often, however, an organisation will do none of the above! They will let the perpetrator go with a reference on the understanding that this is the end of the matter. Incredible though it seems, this is exactly what some major financial institutions or publicly listed companies will do. Not wanting any publicity to impact share prices perhaps, they prefer to hush the matter up!

I am aware of one major building society turned bank that caught one of its employees recently having fraudulently obtained substantial loans and conducted a preliminary investigation. Then they simply asked the person to leave. Around a month later it emerged that the person was working nearby, in one of the UK’s largest credit card insurance providers!

The fraudster was able to obtain another sensitive position, obviously with the assistance of a reference from its former employer. This is irresponsible action by the bank, as it sends out a strong message to would-be fraudsters that it is possible to get away with it. It flies in the face of all fraud prevention efforts being preached by the regulators, various fraud fora and even by fraud experts like myself. How can we combat fraud, if we do not deal with it fully when discovered?

The recent news that a number of T Mobile employees were selling customers details to competitors shows how lenient penalties can encourage fraud and theft. In this case we have the Information Commissioner complaining that the maximum fine of £5,000 from the Magistrates Court is unlikely to be reached, and that harsher penalties should be available to deter this activity. Why do we not simply prosecute – it is theft after all!