Category Archives: Fraud Risk Assessment

Charting the Road Ahead

There are a number of good reasons why fraud examiners and forensic accountants should work hard at including inclusive, well written descriptions of fraud scenarios in their reports; some of these reasons are obvious and some less so. A well written fraud report, like little else, can put dry controls in the context of real life situations that client managers can comprehend no matter what their level of actual experience with fraud. It’s been my experience that well written reports, couched in plain business language, free from descriptions of arcane control structures, and supported by hard hitting scenario analysis can help spark anti-fraud conversations throughout the whole of a firm’s upper management.

A well written report can be a vital tool in transforming that discussion from, for example, relatively abstract talk about the need for an identity management system to a more concrete and useful one dealing with the report’s description of how the theft of vital business data has actually proven to benefit a competitor.

Well written, comprehensive fraud reports can make fraud scenarios real by concretely demonstrating the actual value of the fraud prevention effort to enterprise management and the Board. They can also graphically help set the boundaries for the expectations of what management will expect the prevention function to do in the future if this, or similar scenarios, actually re-occur. The written presentation of the principal fraud or loss scenario treated in the report necessarily involves consideration of the vital controls in place to prevent its reoccurrence which then allows for the related presentation of a qualitative assessment of the present effectiveness of the controls themselves. A well written report thus helps everyone understand how all the control failures related to the fraud interacted and reinforced each other; it’s, therefore, only natural that the fraud examiner or analyst recommend that the report’s intelligence be channeled for use in the enterprise’s fraud and loss prevention program.

Strong fraud report writing has much in common with good story telling. A narrative is shaped explaining a sequence of events that, in this case, has led to an adverse outcome. Although sometimes industry or organization specific, the details of the specific fraud’s unfolding always contains elements of the unique and can sometimes be quite challenging for the examiner even to narrate. The narrator/examiner should especially strive to clearly identify the negative outcomes of the fraud for the organization for those outcomes can sometimes be many and related. Each outcome should be explicitly explicated and its impact clearly enumerated in non-technical language.

But to be most useful as a future fraud prevention tool the examiner’s report needs to make it clear that controls work as separate lines of defense, at times in a sequential way, and at other times interacting with each other to help prevent the re-occurrence of the adverse event. The report should attempt to demonstrate in plain language how this structure broke down in the current instance and demonstrate the implications for the enterprise’s future fraud prevention efforts. Often, the report might explain, how the correct operation of just one control may provide adequate protection or mitigation. If the controls operate independently of each other, as they often do, the combined probability of all of them failing simultaneously tends to be significantly lower than the probability of failure of any one of them. These are the kinds of realities with the power to significantly and positively shape the fraud prevention program for the better and, hence, should never be buried in individual reports but used collectively, across reports, to form a true combined resource for the management of the prevention program.

The final report should talk about the likelihood of the principal scenario being repeated given the present state of preventative controls; this is often best-estimated during discussions with client management, if appropriate. What client management will truly be interested in is the probability of recurrence, but the question is actually better framed in terms of the likelihood over a long (extended) period of time. This question is best answered by involved managers, in particular with the loss prevention manager. If the answer is that this particular fraud risk might materialize again once every 10 years, the probability of its annual occurrence is a sobering 10 percent.

As with frequency estimation, to be of most on-going help in guiding the fraud prevention program, individual fraud reports should attempt to estimate the severity of each scenario’s occurrence. Is it the worst case loss, or the most likely or median loss? In some cases, the absolute worst case may not be knowable, or may mean something as disastrous as the end-of-game for the organization. Any descriptive fraud scenario presented in a fraud report should cover the range of identified losses associated with the case at hand (including any collateral losses the business is likely to face). Documented control failures should always be clearly associated with the losses. Under broad categories, such as process and workflow errors, information leakage events, business continuity events and external attacks, there might have to be a number of developed, narrative scenarios to address the full complexity of the individual case.

Fraud reports, especially for large organizations for which the risk of fraud must always remain a constant preoccupation, can be used to extend and refine fraud prevention programs. Using the documented results of the fraud reporting process, report data can be converted to estimates of losses at different confidence intervals and fed to the fraud prevention program’s estimated distributions for frequency and severity. The bottom line is that organizations of all sizes shouldn’t just shelve their fraud reports but use them as vital input tools to build and maintain the ongoing process of fraud risk assessment for ultimate inclusion in the enterprise’s loss prevention and fraud prevention programs.

Matching SOCS

I was chatting with the soon-to-be-retired information systems director of a major Richmond insurance company several nights ago at the gym. Our friendship goes back many years to when we were both audit directors for the Virginia State Auditor of Public Accounts. My friend was commenting, among other things, on the confusing flood of regulatory changes that’s swept over his industry in recent years relating to Service Organization Controls (SOC) reports. Since SOC reports can be important tools for fraud examiners, I thought they might be an interesting topic for a post.

Briefly, SOC reports are a group of internal control assurance reports, performed by independent reviewers, of IT organizations providing a range of computer based operational services, usually to multiple client corporations. The core idea of a SOC report is to have one or a series of reviews conducted of the internal controls related to financial reporting of the service organization and to then make versions of these reports available to the independent auditors of all the service organization’s user clients; in this way the service organization doesn’t have to be separately and repeatedly audited by the auditors of each of its separate clients, thereby avoiding much duplication of effort and expense on all sides.

In 2009 the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB) issued a new International Standard on Assurance Engagements: ‘ISAE 3402 Assurance Reports on Controls in a Service Organization’. The AICPA followed shortly thereafter with a revision of its own Statement on Auditing Standards (SAS) No. 70, guidance around the performance of third party service organization reports, releasing Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagement (SSAE) 16, ‘Reporting on Controls in a Service Organization’. So how does the SOC process work?

My friend’s insurance company (let’s call it Richmond Mutual) outsources (along with a number of companion companies) its claims processing functions to Fiscal Agent, Ltd. Richmond Mutual is the user organization and Fiscal Agent, Ltd is the service organization. To ensure that all the claims are processed and adequate internal controls are in place and functioning at the service organization, Richmond Mutual could appoint an independent CPA or service auditor to examine and report on the service organization’s controls. In the case of Richmond Mutual, however, the service organization itself, Fiscal Agent, Ltd, obtains the SOC report by appointing an independent service auditor to perform the audit and provide it with a SOC 1 report. A SOC 1 report provides assurance on the business processes that support internal controls over financial reporting and is, consequently, of interest to fraud examiners as, for example, an element to consider in structuring the fraud risk assessment. This report can then be shared with user organizations like Richmond Mutual and with their auditors as deemed necessary. The AICPA also provides for two other SOC reports: SOC 2 and SOC 3. The SOC 2 and SOC 3 reports are used for reporting on controls other than the internal controls over financial reporting. One of the key differences between SOC 2 and SOC 3 reports is that a SOC 3 is a general use report to be provided to anyone while SOC 2 reports are only for those users specifically specified in the report; in other words, the distribution is limited.

SOC reports are valuable to their many users for a whole host of obvious reasons but Fraud Examiners and other assurance professionals need to keep in mind some common misconceptions about them (some shared, I found, by my IT friend). SOC reports are not assurances. IASSB and AICPA guidelines specify that SOC reports are to be of limited distribution, to be used by the service organization, user organization and user auditors only and thus should never be used for any other service organization purpose; never, for example, as marketing or advertising tools to assure potential clients of service organization quality.

SOC 1 reports are used only for reporting on service organization internal controls over financial reporting; in cases where a user or a service organization wants to assess such areas as data privacy or confidentiality, they need to arrange for the performance of a SOC 2 and/or SOC 3 report.

It’s also a common mistake to assume that the SOC report is sufficient verification of internal controls and that no controls on the user organization side need to be assessed by the auditors; the guidelines are clear that while verifying controls at the service organization, controls at the user organization should also be verified. Since service the organization provides considerable information as background for the service auditor’s review, service organizations are often under the mistaken impression that the accuracy of this background information will not be evaluated by the SOC reviewer. The guidelines specify that SOC auditors should carefully verify the quality and accuracy of the information provided by the service organization under the “information provided by the service organization” section of their audit program.

In summary, the purpose of SOC 1 reports is to provide assurance on the processes that support internal controls over financial reporting. Fraud examiners and other users should take the time to understand the varied purpose(s) of the three types of SOC reports so they can use them intelligently. These reports can be extremely useful to fraud examiners assessing the fraud enterprise risk prevention programs of user organizations to understand the controls that impact financial operations and related IT controls, especially in multiple-service provider scenarios.

Sniffing it Out

The first Virginia governor I worked for directly was John Dalton, who was fond of saying that his personal gauge for ethically challenged behavior was the smell test, i.e., did any proposed action (and its follow-on implications) have the odor of appropriateness. Philosophical theories provide the bases for most useful practical decision approaches and aids, although a majority of seasoned executives are unaware of how and why this is so. Whatever the foundation of the phenomena may be, most experienced directors, executives, professional accountants (and governors) appear to have developed tests and commonly used rules of thumb that can be used to assess the ethicality of decisions on a preliminary basis.

If these preliminary tests give rise to concerns, most think a more thorough analysis should be performed. It is often appropriate (and quite common in practice) for subordinate managers and other employees to be asked to check a proposed decision in a quick, preliminary manner to see if an additional full-blown ethical or practicality analysis is required. These quick tests are often referred to as sniff tests. If any of these quick tests are negative, employees are asked to seek out someone like the corporate counsel or an ethics officer (if there is one) for consultation, or to personally perform a full-blown analysis of the proposed action. This analysis is usually retained, and perhaps even reviewed by upper management.

Some of the more common sniff tests employed by managers with whom I’ve worked are:

–Would I be comfortable if this action or decision were to appear on the front page of a national newspaper tomorrow morning?
Will I be proud of this decision?
Will my mother and father be proud of this decision?
Is this action or decision in accord with the corporation’s mission and code?
Does this feel right to me?

Unfortunately, although sniff tests and commonly used ethical rules of thumb are based on ethical principles as popularly conceived and are often useful, they rarely, by themselves, represent anything approaching a comprehensive examination of the confronting decision and therefore can leave the individuals and organization(s) involved vulnerable to making a challengeable choice. For this reason, experts advise that more comprehensive techniques of evaluation should be employed whenever a proposed decision is questionable or likely to have significant consequences. Analysis of specific sniff tests and the related heuristics reveals that they usually focus on a fraction of the comprehensive set of criteria that more complete forms of analysis examine.

Traditionally, an accepted business school case approach to the assessment of a corporate decision and the resulting action has been to evaluate the end results or consequences of the action. To most businesspeople, this evaluation has traditionally been based on the decision’s impact on the interests of the company’s owners or shareholders.

Usually these impacts have been measured in terms of the profit or loss involved, because net profit has been the measure of well-being that shareholders have wanted to maximize. This traditional view of corporate accountability has been modified over the last two decades in two ways. First, the assumption that all shareholders want to maximize only short-term profit appears to represent too narrow a focus. Second, the rights and claims of many non-shareholder groups, such as employees, consumers/clients, suppliers, lenders, environmentalists, host communities, and governments that have a stake or interest in the outcome of the decision, or in the company itself, are being accorded an increased status in corporate decision making.

Modern corporations are increasingly declaring that they are holding themselves self -accountable to shareholders and to non-shareholder groups alike, both of which form the set of stakeholders to which the company pledges to respond. It has become evident (look at the Enron example) that a company cannot reach its full potential, and may even perish, if it loses the support of even one of a select set of its stakeholders known as primary stakeholders.

The assumption of a monolithic shareholder group interested only in short-term profit is undergoing modification primarily because modem corporations are finding their shareholders are to an increasing degree made up of persons and institutional investors who are interested in longer-term time horizons and in how ethically individual businesses are conducted. The latter, who are referred to as ethical investors, apply two screens to investments: Do the investee companies make a profit in excess of appropriate hurdle rates, and do they strive to earn that profit in a demonstrably ethical manner?

Because of the size of the shareholdings of mutual and pension funds, and of other types of institutional investors involved, corporate directors and executives have found that the wishes of ethical investors can be ignored only at their peril. Ethical investors have developed informal and formal networks through which they inform themselves about corporate activity, decide how to vote proxies, and how to approach boards of directors to get them to pay attention to their concerns in such areas as environmental protection, excessive executive compensation, and human rights activities in specific countries and regions. Ethical investors as well as other stakeholder groups, tend to be increasingly unwilling to squeeze the last ounce of profit out of the current year if it means damaging the environment or the privacy rights of other stakeholders. They believe in managing the corporation on a broader basis than short-term profit only. Usually the maximization of profit in a longer than one-year time frame requires harmonious relationships with most stakeholder groups based on the recognition of the interests of those groups.

A negative public relations experience can be a significant and embarrassing price to pay for a decision making process that fails to take the. wishes of stakeholder groups into account. Whether or not special interest groups of private citizens are also shareholders, their capacity to make corporations accountable through social media is evident and growing. The farsighted executive and director will want these concerns taken into account before offended stakeholders have to remind them.

Taking the concerns or interests of stakeholders into account when making decisions, by considering the potential impact of decisions on each stakeholder, is therefore a wise practice if executives want to maintain stakeholder support. However, the multiplicity of stakeholders and stakeholder groups makes this a complex task. To simplify the process, it is desirable to identify and consider a set of commonly held or fundamental stakeholder interests to help focus analyses and decision making on ethical dimensions; stakeholder interests such as the following:

1.Their interest(s) should be better off as a result of the decision.
2. The decision should result in a fair distribution of benefits and burdens.
3. The decision should not offend any of the rights of any stakeholder, including the decision maker, and ..
4. The resulting behavior should demonstrate duties owed as virtuously as expected.

To some extent, these fundamental interests have to be tempered by the realities facing decision makers. For example, although a proposed decision should maximize the betterment of all stakeholders, trade-offs often have to be made between stakeholders’ interests. Consequently, the incurrence of pollution control costs may be counter to the interests of short-term profits that are of interest to some current shareholders and managers. Similarly, there are times when all stakeholders will find a decision acceptable even though one or more of them, or the groups they represent, may be worse off as a result.

In recognition of the requirement for trade-offs and for the understanding that a decision can advance the well-being of all stakeholders as a group, even if some individuals are personally worse off, this fundamental interest should be modified to focus on the well-being of stakeholders rather than only on their betterment. This modification represents a shift from utilitarianism to consequentialism. Once the focus on betterment is relaxed to shift to well-being, the need to analyze the impact of a decision in terms of all four fundamental interests becomes apparent. It is possible, for example, to find that a proposed decision may produce an overall benefit, but the distribution of the burden of producing that decision may be so debilitating to the interests of one or more stakeholder groups that it may be considered grossly unfair. Alternatively, a decision may result in an overall net benefit and be fair, but may offend the rights of a stakeholder and therefore be considered not right. For example, deciding not to recall a marginally flawed product may be cost effective, but would not be considered to be right if users could be seriously injured. Similarly, a decision that does not demonstrate the character, integrity, or courage expected will be considered ethically suspect by stakeholders.

A professional CFE can use an assessment of our client organization’s stakeholder ethical concerns in making pro-active recommendations about fraud detection and prevention strategies and in conducting investigations and should be ready to prepare or assist in such assessments for employers or clients just as they currently do in other fraud deterrence related business processes.

Although many hard-numbers-oriented investigators will be wary of becoming involved with the soft risk assessment of management’s tone-at-the-top ethically shaped decisions, they should bear in mind that the world is changing to put a much higher value on the quality and impact of management’s whole governance structure, the posture of which cannot failure to negatively or positively affect the design of the client’s fraud control and prevention programs.

Risk-Centric Fraud Prevention

A number of our certified Chapter members, currently practicing both independently and as corporate staff, report being asked to proactively assist in the establishment of first time internal fraud prevention programs by clients and employers. That this development is something new is borne out by recent articles in the trade press but, on a moment’s reflection, shouldn’t be surprising since CFEs are so uniquely qualified for the particular task.

At a time when an increasingly volatile stock environment, increased cases of cyber fraud, the pressure of globalization and a multitude of increased regulatory requirements are of major concern to all managements, risk assessment and fraud prevention really have to play an important role in ensuring that corporations are not exposed to unexpected and poorly controlled risks. Internal fraud prevention related activities need to be revisited with a focus not just on all these new business paradigms but also on stakeholders’ expectations, transparency, and accountability.

It just makes sense then that today’s environment also calls for greater collaboration and strong relationships between all types of assurance professionals with their clients at all levels to ensure an internal anti-fraud structure is in place (if one doesn’t presently exist) that facilitates a healthy, secure and transparent operating environment.

To facilitate the establishment of a risk-centric approach, today’s fraud prevention functions (new or presently existing) must continually revisit their methodologies, processes, and practices. CFEs can provide experienced insight and real-time value to their client organization by expanding their consulting efforts to facilitate a risk-centric approach, helping to establish the foundation for a more sophisticated and nimble tone at the top, and by focusing on increased collaboration and strategic engagement.

Fraud prevention efforts have been dominated for some time now by a control focused approach that is often reactive and regressive in actual practice in the face of today’s swiftly changing realities. Anti-fraud professionals today need to widen their proactive scope to address the growing governance threats and risk management needs of increasingly global organizations. This requires them to adopt a revised risk-centric approach that involves:

–Taking fraud prevention and business ethics from a compliance perspective to a cultural mind-set. Accurately assessing these risks requires more than just checking to see whether rules are being followed; practitioners must also try to ensure that the spirit of these rules is incorporated into activities at every level.

–Determining key business and fraud risks rather than casting a wide net over numerous risks, many of which may be remote or obscure; the concept of critical business process identification drawn from disaster recovery and continuous operations planning is especially relevant here.

–Identifying emerging risk issues and trends, such as changes in the regulatory environment (which are often wholly reactive), and bringing them to the attention of key stakeholders.

–Estimating the significance of each fraud risk and assessing its probability of occurrence based on a deeper understanding of the present sense conveyed by constantly shifting data and as sometimes pinpointed by sophisticated statistical analysis.

–Identifying programs and controls designed to more sensitively detect and address risk and by concurrent testing of their effectiveness in real-time.

–Coordinating with the other critical risk and control related business processes, such as compliance, risk management, fiscal control, and legal, to ensure that fraud risks are identified, controlled and managed appropriately.

To provide real strategic value to the organization, new and existing fraud prevention practitioners need to help develop risk-based action plans that respond to their present state of risk assessment awareness and which focus on stakeholder expectations. Internal anti-fraud plans should incorporate risk identification and prioritization, as well as analysis and quantification of risk factors particularly in the new business ventures and strategies so characteristic of today’s volatile environment. Such planning should also reflect an understanding of shared risks among various projects and initiatives, and feature continuous monitoring of business activities and key performance indicators.

In the present cyber-threat laden environment the internal fraud prevention business process has to move from being just another routine and disconnected function to being a fulcrum of organizational governance and risk, working in concert with management, the board, and external auditors. Top management can establish the fraud prevention function’s role by:

–Allowing senior fraud examiners and investigators exposure to security information presently associated with key management and governance committees;
–Championing the importance of ethical conduct, fraud identification and fraud prevention consistently.
–Taking immediate and proactive action on fraud examination and investigative findings regardless of whatever level of the organization suspected perpetrators are identified.
–Holding senior executives accountable for identified instances of fraud, waste and abuse in business processes over which they exercise management oversight.
–Supporting the management of the fraud prevention function when its findings and recommendations to improve security prove politically unpopular.
–Defining fraud prevention’s role and management’s expectations.
–Providing appropriate funding, talent and authority to the function.

The ACFE has long indicated that a strong tone at the top from senior management about the importance of a internal fraud prevention function goes a long way toward promoting the engagement of managers throughout the client organization.

For staff assigned to an internal fraud prevention plan to proactively review important business strategies successfully for fraud vulnerability, examiners need to collaborate with management. In addition to providing assurance on compliance initiatives, examiners should develop a forward-looking approach to their assessment planning in which they cooperate and coordinate with related risk and control functions, focus on critical business risks and exposures, and determine the relevance and effectiveness of gathered executive responses to help an organization manage fraud risk proactively. To be forward-looking, fraud prevention professionals need to be fully integrated into the strategic planning process so that they can clearly identify which fraud related risks the organization will be undertaking. They also must be involved with the business in evaluating problems that come to light to determine whether they are the result of control weaknesses that could also emerge in other parts of the organization.

To identify and analyze rapidly emerging risks, direct resources toward areas of greatest risk, and conduct targeted, real-time investigations in response to specific, predicated risks, examiners must leverage technology, learn new skills, and work with management to understand and clarify their evolving expanded role.

To assess the new emerging risks effectively, fraud prevention professionals must develop a deeper understanding of the client business and of the processes that make competitors in the client’s industry successful. An effective fraud prevention activity that can deal with contemporary business risks and meet the ever-increasing demands of management and stakeholders requires a solid staffing strategy. As CFEs we must help spread the word that our client organizations need to invest in skilled resources, methods, training, career paths, and technical infrastructure to deal with increasing cyber-related business risks related to fraud, their internal controls, and government imposed regulations. When staffing a fraud prevention function, top management should:

–Establish a program for selecting and developing the fraud prevention team.
–Identify the skills and expertise required for an effective anti-fraud business process; the ACFE’s guidance and training programs are an invaluable resource to any organization contemplating a new fraud prevention function or looking to strengthen an existing one.
–Assess existing resources to identify staffing gaps.
–Identify and create key performance indicators for deploying fraud prevention and investigatory resources.
–Co-source or outsource internal fraud prevention activities, based on an assessment of current resources, budget, and strategic and tactical requirements.

Acquiring new skills through ACFE training can enable internally focused examiners to direct resources to those techniques that are the most effective in identifying risks to the organization. Especially important is the need to develop deep expertise in specialties such as credit, IT, finance, compliance, and cyber. In addition, investigators and examiners will have to be trained to approach their work strategically, beginning with a detailed understanding of where its owners and stakeholders view where the client business has been and where it is going.

In summary, progressive internal fraud prevention and investigation functions need to partner with their client organization’s risk management function to gain comprehensive visibility into enterprise-wide risks and to support performance of automation supported follow-on risk assessments that can help prevent fraud vulnerability issues from turning into fraud events. Such insight into the organization’s risk profile allows internal investigative professionals to deliver more strategic value by focusing their proactive fraud risk evaluation efforts on areas that represent the greatest risk to the organization as well as proactively anticipating where emerging fraud risk issues are most likely to cause problems. In addition, leveraging the activities performed by the client’s risk management function can lower fraud prevention’s overall cost of operation.

An Ancient Skill

I remember Professor Jerome Taylor in his graduate class at the University of Chicago introducing us to the complexities of what the ancients called the trivium.  Because the setting for the process of fraud examination is so often fraught with emotion and confusion, even a beginning fraud examiner quickly realizes that presenting evidence collected during examination fieldwork merely as a succession of facts often isn’t enough to fully convince clients and to adequately address their many concerns (many of which always seem to emerge all at once). To capture stakeholders’ attention, and to elicit a satisfactory response, CFEs need to possess some degree of rhetorical skill.

Rhetoric refers to the use of language to persuade and instruct. Throughout the Middle Ages, European universities taught rhetoric to beginning students as one of three foundational topics composing what was known as the trivium. Logic and grammar, the other two foundational topics, refer to the mechanics of thought and analysis, and to the mechanics of language, respectively. We CFEs and forensic accountants essentially follow the trivium in our work, whether we realize it or not. After gathering evidence through fieldwork, we apply logic to analyze that evidence and to present our vision of the facts to our client organizations in our final reports. We also use grammatical rules to structure text within our reports and memorandum.

Applying the trivium requires a balanced approach; too much focus on any one of the three components to the exclusion of the others can lead to ineffective communication. Fraud examiners need to consider all three trivium components evenly and avoid the common trap of collecting too much evidence or performing too much analysis in the belief that such concentrations will help strengthen our final reports.

The ancient Greeks defined three key components of rhetoric, the speech itself (text), the speaker delivering the speech (author), and those who listen to the speech (audience). Collectively, these components form what’s called the rhetorical triangle. For CFEs, the triangle’s three points equate to the final report or memorandum, the CFE him or herself, and our clients or stakeholders. All three of the rhetorical triangle components are interrelated, and they are each essential to the success of all investigative and/or assurance work. Each should be considered before any engagement and kept in mind throughout the engagement life cycle but especially during the report writing and presentation process.

Although the investigative team lead would be considered the primary author, each of the engagement team members plays a supporting role by authoring observations and preliminary findings that are then compiled into an integrated report. The person performing the important task of draft reviewer also has a role to play, ensuring that the final report meets ACFE and other applicable standards and fulfills the overall purpose defined in the planning document.

The character of the intended audience should be considered with each engagement. Audience members are not homogeneous; each may have different perspectives and expectations. For this reason, CFEs need to consult with them and consider their perspectives even before the engagement begins to the extent feasible.

Once engagement fieldwork has been completed, the authors compose a written report containing the results of the investigative field work. The report represents perhaps the most important outcome communication from the examination process, and the best chance to focus the client’s attention.

When crafting the final report, three separate but interrelated components, designated ‘appeals’, need to be considered and applied: ethos, logos, and pathos.

Ethos is an appeal to the audience’s perception of the honesty, authority, and expertise of the report’s author. Closely related to reputation, ethos is established when the audience determines that the author is qualified, trustworthy, and believable. Because the term ethics derives from ethos, adhering to ACFEs standards and Code of Ethics supports this appeal.

Some helpful formulations, in the form of questions, to keep in mind regarding the ethos component when formulating your report are:

–What assumptions does your audience likely make about you and the investigative process, what you produce, and the level of service you and your team provide?
–Is there a way to take advantage of their positive assumptions to improve the fraud investigation process for the future?
–What can you do to overcome their negative assumptions, if any?
–Do you create the expectation that what you produce and the level of service you provide will be above average or even exceptional?
–Are you using all the available channels to create an impression of excellence?

For CFEs with an on-going or long-term employment or other relationship with the client, the need to consider ethos begins long before the start of any particular engagement. Ethos is supported by the structure and governance of the fraud examination or forensic accounting function as well as by the selection of team members, including alignment between the type of engagements to be performed and the team’s qualifications, education, and training. The ethos appeal is also established by choosing to comply with examination and audit standards and with other professional requirements to demonstrate a high level of credibility, build trust, and gain a favorable reputation over time.

Logos appeals to the audience’s sense of logic, encompassing factors such as the reason and analysis used, the underlying meaning communicated, and the supporting facts and figures presented. The written document’s visual appeal, diagrams, charts, and other elements, as well as how the information is organized, presented, and structured, also factor into logos. Story conveys meaning. From the time we’re born we learn about the world around us through narratives. This aspect of logos continues to be important throughout our lives. We experience the world through our senses, particularly our eyes. Design and visual attractiveness are key to engaging an audience made up of the visual animals we are.

–Is what you are presenting easy to understand?
–Is your presentation design simple and pleasing to the eye?

Investigators need for logos is addressed by their written report’s executive summary; detailed observations, and findings as well as appendices with secondary information that can be used to further instruct the audience. The report describes the origin, drivers and overall purpose of the engagement, its findings, and conclusions. Ultimately, from a rhetorical standpoint, examiners try to tell a convincing, self-contained short story that conveys key messages to the audience. The structure and format of the report, together with its textual content and visual elements, also support the logos appeal.

Like ethos, the logos appeal is fulfilled long before an individual engagement begins. It starts with the rational, periodic assessment and identification of business processes at high-risk for fraud; areas requiring management’s attention, resulting in the development and implementation of effective anti-fraud controls. CFEs are then prepared to undertake engagements, executing steps to collect valid and relevant evidence to justify conclusions and to guide and support the client’s initiation of successful prosecutions.

Pathos is an appeal to the audience’s emotions, either positive (joy, excitement, hopefulness) or negative (anger, sadness). It is used to establish compassion or empathy. Unlike logos, pathos focuses on the audience’s irrational modes of response. The Greeks maintained that pathos was the strongest and most reliable form of persuasion. Pathos can be especially powerful when it is used well and connects with the audience’s underlying values and perspective. Used incorrectly, however, pathos can distort or detract from the impact of actual factual evidence.

Examiners should strive to walk a mile in someone else’s shoes and look for ways to better understand the client/audience’s perspective. Attention to pathos can help support not only examination objectives, but the overarching goal of creating a satisfactory investigative outcome. CFEs should also be mindful of their overall tone and word selection, and ensure they balance negative and positive comments giving credit to individuals and circumstances where credit is due.

To some extent, pathos is interdependent with ethos and logos: The sting of negative results can be reduced somewhat by the positive effect of the other two appeals. For example, clients/audience members are more likely to accept bad news from someone they trust and respect, and who they know has followed a rational, structured approach to the engagement. But at the same time, ethos and logos can be offset by negative pathos. Preferred practice generally consists of holding regular meetings with corporate counsel and/or other critical stakeholders over the course of the investigation, maintaining transparency, and providing stakeholders with an opportunity to address investigative findings or provide evidence that counters or clarifies the CFEs observations.

In summary, while all three elements of rhetorical appeal play an important role in communication and while none should be neglected, CFEs and forensic accountants should pay particular attention to pathos. The dominance of feelings over reason is part of human nature, and examiners should consider this powerful element when planning and executing engagements and reporting the results. By doing so, certified investigators can help ensure audiences accept our message and make informed judgements related to fraud recovery, prosecution and possible restitution.

Authority Figures

As fraud examiners and forensic accountants intimately concerned with the on-going state of health of our client’s fraud management programs, we find ourselves constantly looking at the integrity of the critical data that’s truly (as much as financial capital) the life blood of today’s organizations. We’re constantly evaluating the network of anti-fraud controls we hope will help keep those pesky, uncontrolled, random data driven vulnerabilities to fraud to a minimum. Every little bit of critical financial information that gets mishandled or falls through the cracks, every transaction that doesn’t get recorded, every anti-fraud policy or procedure that’s misapplied has some effect on the client’s overall fraud management picture and on our challenge.

When it comes to managing its client, financial and payment data, almost every small to medium sized organization has a Sandy. Sandy’s the person to whom everyone goes to get the answers about data, and the state of system(s) that process it; quick answers that no one else ever seems to have. That’s because Sandy is an exceptional employee with years of detailed hands-on-experience in daily financial system operations and maintenance. Sandy is also an example of the extraordinary level of dependence that many organizations have today on a small handful of their key employees. The now unlamented great recession, during which enterprises relied on retaining the experienced employees they had rather than on traditional hiring and cross-training practices, only exacerbated an existing, ever growing trend. The very real threat to the Enterprise Fraud Management system that the Sandy’s of the corporate data world pose is not so much that they will commit fraud themselves (although that’s an ever-present possibility) but that they will retire or get another job across town or out of state, taking their vital knowledge of company systems and data with them.

The day after Sandy’s retirement party and, to an increasing degree thereafter, it will dawn on Sandy’s management that it’s lost a large amount of information about the true state of its data and financial processing system(s). Management will also become aware, if it isn’t already, of its lack of a large amount of system critical data documentation that’s been carried around nowhere else but in Sandy’s head. The point is that, for some smaller organizations, their reliance on a few key employees for day to day, operationally related information goes well beyond what’s appropriate and constitutes an unacceptable level of risk to their entire fraud prevention programs. Today’s newspapers and the internet are full of stories about hacking and large-scale data breeches, that only reinforce the importance of vulnerable data and of the completeness of its documentation to the on-going operational viability of our client organizations.

Anyone whose investigated frauds involving large scale financial systems (insurance claims, bank records, client payment information) is painfully aware that when the composition of data changes (field definitions or content) surprisingly little of change related information is formally documented. Most of the information is stored in the heads of some key employees, and those key employees aren’t necessarily involved in everyday, routine data management projects. There’s always a significant level of detail that’s gone undocumented, left out or to chance, and it becomes up to the analyst of the data (be s/he an auditor, a management scientist, a fraud examiner or other assurance professional) to find the anomalies and question them. The anomalies might be in the form of missing data, changes in data field definitions, or changes in the content of the fields; the possibilities are endless. Without proper, formal documentation, the immediate or future significance of these types of anomalies for the fraud management system and for the overall fraud risk assessment process itself become almost impossible to determine.

If our auditor or fraud examiner, operating under today’s typical budget or time constraints, is not very thorough and misses the identification of some of these anomalies, they can end up never being addressed. How many times as an analyst have we all tried to explain something (like apparently duplicate transactions) about the financial system that just doesn’t look right only to be told, “Oh, yeah. Sandy made that change back in February before she retired; we don’t have too many details on it.” In other words, undocumented changes to transactions and data, details of which are now only existent in Sandy’s no longer available head. When a data driven system is built on incomplete information, the system can be said to have failed in its role as a component of the origination’s fraud prevention program. The cycle of incomplete information gets propagated to future decisions, and the cost of the missing or inadequately explained data can be high. What can’t be seen, can’t ever be managed or even explained.

In summary, it’s a truly humbling to experience to be confronted with how much critical financial information resides in the fading (or absent) memories of past or present key employees; what the ACFE calls authority figures. As fraud examiners we should attempt to foster a culture among our clients supportive of the development of concurrent systems of transaction related documentation and the sharing of knowledge on a consistent basis about all systems but especially regarding the recording of changes to critical financial systems. One nice benefit of this approach, which I brought to the attention of one of my audit clients not too long ago, would be to free up the time of one of these key employees to work on more productive fraud control projects rather than serving as the encyclopedia for the rest of the operational staff.

Loose Ends

A forensic accountant colleague of mine often refers to “loose-ends”. In his telling, loose-ends are elements of an investigation that get over-looked or insufficiently investigated which have the power to come back and bite an examiner with ill effect. That a small anomaly may be a sign of fraud is a fact that is no surprise to any seasoned investigator. Since fraud is typically hidden, the discovery of fraud usually is unlikely, at least at the beginning, to involve a huge revelation.

The typical audit does not presume that those the auditor examiners and the documents s/he reviews have something sinister about them. The overwhelming majority of audits are conducted in companies in which material fraud does not exist. However, the auditor maintains constant awareness that material fraud could be present.

Imagine a policewoman walking down a dark alley into which she knows a suspect has entered just before her. She doesn’t know where the suspect is, but as she walks down that alley, she is acutely aware of and attuned to her surroundings. Her senses are at their highest level. She knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that danger lurks nearby.

Fraud audits (and audits in general) aren’t like that. Fraud audits are more like walking through a busy mall and watching normal people go about their daily activities. In the back of the examiner’s mind, he knows that among all the shoppers are a few, a very few, shoplifters. They look just like everyone else. The examiner knows they are there because statistical studies and past experience have shown that they are, but he doesn’t know exactly where or who they are or when he will encounter them, if at all. If he were engaged to find them, he would have to design procedures to increase the likelihood of discovery without in any way annoying the substantial majority of honest shoppers in whose midst they swim.

A fraud risk assessment evaluates areas of potential fraud to determine whether the current control structure and environment are addressing fraud risk at a level that aligns with the organization’s risk appetite and risk tolerance. Therefore, it is important during the development and implementation of the risk management program to specifically address various fraud schemes to establish the correct levels of control.

It occurred to me a while back that a fraud risk assessment can of thought of as ignoring a loose-end if it fails to include sufficient consideration of the client organization’s ethical dimension. That the ethical dimension is not typically included as a matter of course in the routine fraud risk assessment constitutes, to my mind, a lost opportunity to conduct a fuller, and potentially, a more useful assessment. As part of their assessments, today’s practitioners can potentially use surveys, Control Self-Assessment sessions, focus groups, and workshops with employees to take the organization’s ethical temperature and determine its ethical baseline. Under this expanded model, the most successful fraud risk assessment would include small brainstorming sessions with the operational management of the business process(s) under review. Facilitated by a Certified Fraud Examiner (CFE), these assessments would look at typical fraud schemes encountered in various areas of the organization and identify the internal controls designed to mitigate each of them. At a high level, this analysis examines internal controls and the internal control environment, as well as resources available to prevent, detect, and deter fraud.

Fraud risk assessments emphasize possible collusion and management overrides to circumvent internal controls. Although an internal control might be in place to prevent fraudulent activity, the analysis must consider how this control could be circumvented, manipulated, or avoided. This evaluation can help the CFE understand the actual robustness and resilience of the control and of the control environment and estimate the potential risk to the organization.

One challenge at this point in the process is ensuring that the analysis assesses not just roles, but also those specific individuals who are responsible for the controls. Sometimes employees will feel uncomfortable contemplating a fellow employee or manager perpetrating fraud. This is where an outside fraud expert like the CFE can help facilitate the discussion and ensure that nothing is left off the table. To ask and get the answers to the right questions, the CFE facilitator should help the respondents keep in mind that:

o Fraud entails intentional misconduct designed to avoid detection.
o Risk assessments identify where fraud might occur and who the potential perpetrator(s) might be.
o Persons inside and outside of the organization could perpetrate such schemes.
o Fraud perpetrators typically exploit weaknesses in the system of controls or may override or circumvent controls.
o Fraud perpetrators typically find ways to hide the fraud from detection.

It’s important to evaluate whether the organization’s culture promotes ethical or unethical decision-making. Unfortunately, many organizations have established policies and procedures to comply with various regulations and guidelines without committing to promoting a culture of ethical behavior. Simply having a code of conduct or an ethics policy is not enough. What matters is how employees act when confronted with an ethical choice; this is referred to by the ACFE as measuring the organization’s ethical baseline.

Organizations can determine their ethical baseline by periodically conducting either CFE moderated Control Self-Assessment sessions including employees from high-risk business processes, through an online survey of employees from various areas and levels within the organization, or through workshop-based surveys using a balloting tool that can keep responses anonymous. The broader the survey population, the more insightful the results will be. For optimal results, surveys should be short and direct, with no more than 15 to 20 questions that should only take a few minutes for most employees to answer. An important aspect of conducting this survey is ensuring the anonymity of participants, so that their answers are not influenced by peer pressure or fear of retaliation. The survey can ask respondents to rate questions or statements on a scale, ranging from 1—Strongly Disagree to 5—Strongly Agree. Sample statements might include:

1. Our organizational culture is trust-based.
2. Missing approvals are not a big deal here.
3. Strong personalities dominate most departments.
4. Pressure to perform outweighs ethical behavior.
5. I share my passwords with my co-workers.
6. Retaliation will not be accepted here.
7. The saying “Don’t rock the boat!” fits this organization.
8. I am encouraged to speak up whenever needed.
9. Ethical behavior is a top priority of management.
10.I know where I can go if I need to report a potential issue of misconduct.

The ethical baseline should not be totally measured on a point system, nor should the organization be graded based on the survey results. The results should simply be an indicator of the organization’s ethical environment and a tool to identify potential areas of concern. If repeated over time, the baseline can help identify both positive and negative trends. The results of the ethical baseline survey should be discussed by the CFE with management as part of a broader fraud risk assessment project. This is especially important if there are areas with a lack of consensus among the survey respondents. For example, if the answer to a question is split down the middle between strongly agree and strongly disagree, this should be discussed to identify the root cause of the variance. Most questions should be worded to either show strong ethical behaviors or to raise red flags of potential unethical issues or inability to report such issues promptly to the correct level in the organization.

In summary, the additional value created by combining of the results of the traditional fraud risk assessment with an ethical baseline assessment can help CFEs better determine areas of risk and control that should be considered in building the fraud prevention and response plans. For example, fraud risk schemes that are heavily dependent on controls that can be easily overridden by management may require more frequent assurance from prevention professionals than those schemes that are mitigated by system-based controls. And an organization with a weak ethical baseline may require more frequent assessment of detective control procedures than one with a strong ethical baseline, which might rely on broader entity-level controls. By adding ethical climate evaluation to their standard fraud risk assessment procedures, CFEs can tie up what otherwise might be a major loose-end in their risk evaluation.

Concealment Strategies & Fraud Scenarios

I remember Joseph Wells mentioning at an ACFE conference years ago that identifying the specific asset concealment strategy selected by a fraudster was often key to the investigator’s subsequent understanding of the entire fraud scenario the fraudster had chosen to implement. What Joe meant was that a fraud scenario is the unique way the inherent fraud scheme has occurred (or can occur) at an examined entity; therefore, a fraud scenario describes how an inherent fraud risk will occur under specific circumstances. Upon identification, a specific fraud scenario, and its associated concealment strategy, become the basis for fraud risk assessment and for the examiner’s subsequent fraud examination program.

Fraud concealment involves the strategies used by the perpetrator of the fraud scenario to conceal the true intent of his or her transaction(s). Common concealment strategies include false documents, false representations, false approvals, avoiding or circumventing control levels, internal control evasion, blocking access to information, enhancing the effects of geographic distance between documents and controls, and the application of both real and perceived pressure. Wells also pointed out that an important aspect of fraud concealment pertains to the level of sophistication demonstrated by the perpetrator; the connection between concealment strategies and fraud scenarios is essential in any discussion of fraud risk structure.

As an example, consider a rights of return fraud scenario related to ordered merchandise. Most industries allow customers to return products for any number of reasons. Rights of return refers to circumstances, whether as a matter of contract or of existing practice, under which a product may be returned after its sale either in exchange for a cash refund, or for a credit applied to amounts owed or to be owed for other products, or in exchange for other products. GAAP allows companies to recognize revenue in certain cases, even though the customer may have a right of return. When customers are given a right of return, revenue may be recognized at the time of sale if the sales price is substantially fixed or determinable at the date of sale, the buyer has paid or is obligated to pay the seller, the obligation to pay is not contingent on resale of the product, the buyer’s obligation to the seller does not change in the event of theft or physical destruction or damage of the product, the buyer acquiring the product for resale is economically separate from the seller, the seller does not have significant obligations for future performance or to bring about resale of the product by the buyer, and the amount of future returns can be reasonably estimated.

Sales revenue not recognizable at the time of sale is recognized either once the return privilege has substantially expired or if the conditions have been subsequently met. Companies sometimes stray by establishing accounting policies or sales agreements that grant customers vague or liberal rights of returns, refunds, or exchanges; that fail to fix the sales price; or that make payment contingent upon resale of the product, receipt of funding from a lender, or some other future event. Payment terms that extend over a substantial portion of the period in which the customer is expected to use or market the purchased products may also create problems. These terms effectively create consignment arrangements, because, no economic risk has been transferred to the purchaser.

Frauds in connection with rights of return typically involve concealment of the existence of the right, either by contract or arising from accepted practice, and/or departure from GAAP specified conditions. Concealment usually takes one or more of the following forms:

• Use of side letters: created and maintained separate and apart from the sales contract, that provide the buyer with a right of return;

• Obligations by oral promise or some other form of understanding between seller and buyer that is honored as a customary practice but arranged covertly and hidden;

• Misrepresentations designed to mischaracterize the nature of arrangements, particularly in respect of:

–Consignment arrangements made to appear to be final sales;

–Concealment of contingencies, under which the buyer can return the products, including failure to resell the products, trial periods, and product performance conditions;

–Failure to disclose the existence, or extent, of stock rotation rights, price protection concessions, or annual returned-goods limitations;

–Arrangement of transactions, with straw counterparties, agents, related parties, or other special purpose entities in which the true nature of the arrangements is concealed or obscured, but, ultimately, the counterparty does not actually have any significant economic risk in the “sale”.

Sometimes the purchaser is complicit in the act of concealment, for example, by negotiating a side letter, and this makes detection of the fraud even more difficult. Further, such frauds often involve collusion among several individuals within an organization, such as salespersons, their supervisors, and possibly both marketing and financial managers.

It’s easy to see that once a CFE has identified one or more of these concealment strategies as operative in a given entity, the process of developing a descriptive fraud scenario, completing a related risk assessment and constructing a fraud examination program will be a relatively straight forward process. As a working example, of a senario and related concealment strategies …

Over two decades ago the SEC charged a major computer equipment manufacturer with overstating revenue in the amount of $500,000 on transactions for which products had been shipped, but for which, at the time of shipment, the company had no reasonable expectation that the customer would accept and pay for the products. The company eventually accepted back most of the product as sales returns during the following quarter.

The SEC noted that the manufacturer’s written distribution agreements generally allowed the distributor wide latitude to return product to the company for credit whenever the product was, in the distributor’s opinion, damaged, obsolete, or otherwise unable to be sold. According to the SEC, in preparing the manufacturer’s financial statements for the target year, company personnel submitted a proposed allowance for future product returns that was unreasonably low in light of the high level of returns the manufacturer had received in the first several months of the year.

The SEC determined that various officers and employees in the accounting and sales departments knew the exact amount of returns the company had received before the year end, when the company’s independent auditors finished their fieldwork on the annual audit. Had the manufacturer revised the allowance for sales returns to reflect the returns information, the SEC concluded it would have had to reduce the net revenue reported for the fiscal year. Instead, the SEC found that several of the manufacturer’s officers and employees devised schemes to prevent the auditors from discovering the true amount of the returns, including 1), keeping the auditors away from the area at the manufacturer’s headquarters where the returned goods were stored, and 2), accounting personnel altering records in the computer system to reduce the level of returns. After all the facts were assembled, the SEC took disciplinary action against several company executives.

As with side agreements, a broad base of inquiry into company practices may be one of the best assessment techniques the CFE has regarding possible concealment strategies supporting fraud scenarios involving returns and exchanges. In addition to inquiries of this kind, the ACFE recommends that CFE’s may consider using analytics like:

• Compare returns in the current period with prior periods and ask about unusual increases.

• Because companies may slow the return process to avoid reducing sales in the current period, determine whether returns are processed in timely fashion. The facts can also be double-checked by confirming with customers.

• Calculate the sales return percentage (sales returns divided by total sales) and ask about any unusual increase.

• Compare returns after a reporting period with both the return reserve and the monthly returns to determine if they appear reasonable.

• Determine whether sales commissions are paid at the time of sale or at the time of collection. Sales commissions paid at the time of sale provide incentives to inflate sales artificially to meet internal and external market pressures.

• Determine whether product returns are adjusted from sales commissions. Sales returns processed through the so-called house account may provide a hidden mechanism to inflate sales to phony customers, collect undue commissions, and return the product to the vendor without being penalized by having commissions adjusted for the returned goods.

The Sword of Damocles

The media provide us with daily examples of the fact that technology is a double-edged sword. The technological advancements that make it easy for people with legitimate purposes to engage with our client businesses and governmental agencies also provide a mechanism for those bent on perpetrating theft and frauds of all kinds.

The access to services and information that customers have historically demanded has opened the flood gates through which disgruntled or unethical employees and criminals enter to commit fraud. Criminals are also exploiting the inadequacies of older fraud management policies or, in some instances, the overall lack thereof. Our parent organization, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) has estimated that about 70 percent of all companies around the world experienced some type of fraud in 2016, with total global losses due to fraud exceeding US $4 trillion annually and expected to rise continually.  Organizations have incurred, on average, the loss of an estimated 7 percent of their annual revenues to fraud, with $994 billion of that total in the US alone. The ACFE has also noted that the frauds reported lasted a median length of 18 months before being detected. In addition to the direct impact of revenue loss, fraud erodes customer satisfaction and drains investments that could have been directed to corporate innovation and growth. Organizations entrusted with personally identifiable information are also held directly accountable in the eyes of the public for any breach. Surveys have shown that about one-third of fraud victims avoid merchants they blame for their victimization.

We assurance professionals know that criminals become continuously more sophisticated and the fraud they perpetrate increasingly complex. In response, the requirements for fraud risk management have significantly changed over the last few years. Fraud risk management is now not a by-product, but a purposeful choice intended to mitigate or eliminate an organizations’ exposure to the ethically challenged. Fraud risk management is no longer a “once and done” activity, but has become an on-going, ideally concurrent, program. As with all effective processes, it must be performed according to some design. To counter fraud, an organization must first understand its unique situation and the risk to which it may be exposed. This cannot be accomplished in a vacuum or through divination, but through structured analysis of an organization’s current state. Organizations are compelled by their increasingly cyber supported environments to establish an appropriate enterprise fraud risk management framework aligned with the organization’s strategic objectives and supported by a well-planned road map leading the organization to its properly defined target state of protection. Performing adequate analysis of the current state and projecting the organization goals considering that desired state is essential.  Analysis is the bedrock for implementation of any enterprise fraud risk management framework to effectively manage fraud risk.

Fraud risk management is thus both a top-down and a bottom-up process. It’s critical for an organization to establish and implement the right policies, processes, technology and supporting components within the organization and to diligently enforce these policies and processes collaboratively and consistently to fight fraud effectively across the organization. To counter fraud at an enterprise level, organizations should develop an integrated counter fraud program that enables information sharing and collaboration; the goal is to prevent first, detect early, respond effectively, monitor continuously and learn constantly. Counter fraud experience in both the public and for-profit sectors has resulted in the identification of a few critical factors for the successful implementation of enterprise-wide fraud risk management in the present era of advanced technology and big data.

The first is fraud risk management by design. Organizations like the ACFE have increasingly acknowledged the continuously emerging pattern of innovative frauds and the urgency on the part of all organizations to manage fraud risk on a daily, concurrent basis.  As a result, organizations have attempted implementation of the necessary management processes and solutions. However, it is not uncommon that our client organizations find themselves lacking in the critical support components of such a program.  Accordingly, their fraud risk mitigation efforts tend to be poorly coordinated and, sometimes, even reactionary. The fraud risk management capabilities and technology solutions in place are generally implemented in silos and disconnected across the organization.  To coordinate and guide the effort, the ACFE recommends implementation of the following key components:

— A rigorous risk assessment process — An organization must have an effective fraud risk assessment process to systematically identify significant fraud risk and to determine its individual exposure to such risk. The assessment may be integrated with an overall risk assessment or performed as a stand-alone exercise, but it should, at a minimum, include risk identification, risk likelihood, significance assessment and risk response; a component for fraud risk mitigation and implementation of compensating controls across the critical business processes composing the enterprise is also necessary for cost-effective fraud management.

–Effective governance and clearly defined organizational responsibilities — Organizations must commit to an effective governance process providing oversight of the fraud management process. The central fraud risk management program must be equipped with a clear charter and accountability that will provide direction and oversight for counter fraud efforts. The fraud risk must be managed enterprise-wide with transparency and communication integrated across the organization. The formally designated fraud risk program owner must be at a level from which clear management guidelines can be communicated and implemented.

–An integrated counter fraud framework and approach — An organization-wide counter fraud framework that covers the complete landscape of fraud management (from enterprise security, authentication, business process, and application policy and procedure controls, to transaction monitoring and management), should be established. What we should be looking for as CFEs in evaluating a client’s program is a comprehensive counter fraud approach to continually enhance the consistency and efficacy of fraud management processes and practices.

–A coordinated network of counter fraud capabilities — An organization needs a structured, coordinated system of interconnected capabilities (not a point solution) implemented through management planning and proper oversight and governance. The system should ideally leverage the capabilities of big data and consider a broad set of attributes (e.g., identity, relationships, behaviors, patterns, anomalies, visualization) across multiple processes and systems. It should be transparent across users and provide guidance and alerts that enable timely and smart anti-fraud related decisions across the organization.

Secondly, a risk-based approach. No contemporary organization gets to stand still on the path to fraud risk management. Criminals are not going to give organizations a time-out to plug any holes and upgrade their arsenal of analytical tools. Organizations must adopt a risk-based approach to address areas and processes of highest risk exposures immediately, while planning for future fraud prevention enhancements. Countering fraud is an ongoing and continually evolving process, and the journey to the desired target state is a balancing act across the organization.

Thirdly, continual organizational collaboration and systemic learning. Fraud detection and prevention is not merely an information-gathering exercise and technology adoption, but an entire life cycle with continuous feedback and improvement. It requires the organization’s commitment to, and implementation of continual systemic learning, data sharing, and communication. The organization also needs to periodically align the enterprise counter fraud program with its strategic plan.

Fourthly, big data and advanced analytics.  Technological breakthroughs and capabilities grounded in big data and analytics can help prevent and counter fraudulent acts that impact the bottom line and threaten brand value and customer retention. Big data technology can ingest data from any source, regardless of structure, volume or velocity. It can harness, filter and sift through terabytes of data, whether in motion or at rest, to identify and relate the elements of information that really matter to the detection of on-going as well as of potential frauds. Big data off-the-shelf solutions already provide the means to detect instances of fraud, waste, abuse, financial crimes, improper payments, and more. Big data solutions can also reduce complexity across lines of business and allow organizations to manage fraud pervasively throughout the entire life cycle of any business process.

In summary, smart organizations manage the sword of potential fraud threats with well-planned road maps supported by proper organization and governance.  They analyze their state to understand where they are, and implement an integrated framework of standard management processes to provide the guidance and methodology for effective, ethics based, concurrent anti-fraud practice. The management of fraud risk is an integral part of their overall risk culture; a support system of interconnected counter fraud capabilities integrated across systems and processes, enabled by a technology strategy and supporting formal enterprise level oversight and governance.

A Ship of Fools

Our Chapter’s January-February 2018 lecture for CPE credit is concerned with the broader ethical implications of the types of fraud, many interlocking and coordinated, that made up the 2007-2008 Great Recession.  At the center of the scandal were ethically challenged actions by bank managements and their boards, but also by the investment companies and ratings agencies, who not only initiated much of the fraud and deception but, in many cases, actively expanded and perpetuated it.

Little more than a glance at the historical record confirms that deception by bank executives of regulators and of their own investors about illegal activity or about the institution’s true financial condition to conceal poor performance, poor management, or questionable transactions is not new to the world of U.S. finance. In fact, it was a key practice during the meltdown of the financial markets in 2007. In addition, the period saw heated debate about alleged deception by the rating agencies, Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s, and Fitch, of major institutional investors, who depended on the agencies’ valuations of subprime-backed securities in the making of investment decisions. Thus, not only deceptive borrowers and unscrupulous mortgage brokers and appraisers contributed to the meltdown. The maelstrom of lies and deception that drove the entire U.S. financial system in mid to late 2005 accelerated to the point of no return, and the crisis that ensued proved unavoidable.

There were ample instances of bank deception in the years leading up to the Great Depression of the 1930’s. The facts came out with considerable drama and fanfare through the work of the era’s Pecora Commission. However, the breadth and scope of executive deception that came under the legal and regulatory microscope following the financial market collapse of 2007 to 2009 represent some of history’s most brazen cases of concealment of irresponsible lending practices, fraudulent underwriting, shady financial transactions, and intentionally false statements to investors, federal regulators, and investigators.

According to the ACFE and other analysts, the lion’s share of direct blame for the meltdown lies with top executives of the major banks, investment firms, and rating agencies. They charge the commercial bank bosses with perpetuating a boom in reckless mortgage lending and the investment bankers with essentially tricking institutional investors into buying the exotic derivative securities backed by the millions and millions of toxic mortgages sold off by the mortgage lenders. The commercial bank bosses and investment bankers were, according to these observers, aided and abetted by the rating agencies, which lowered their rating standards on high-risk mortgage-backed securities that should never have received investment-grade ratings but did so because the rating agencies were paid by the very investment banks which issued the bonds. The agencies reportedly feared losing business if they gave poor ratings to the securities.

As many CFEs know, fraud is always the principal credit risk of any nonprime mortgage lending operation. It’s impossible in practice to detect fraud without reviewing a sample of the loan files. Paper loan files are bulky, so they are photographed, and the images are stored on computer tapes. Unfortunately, most investors (the large commercial and investment banks that purchased non-prime loans and pooled them to create financial derivatives) didn’t review the loan files before purchasing them and did not even require the original lenders to provide them with the loan tapes requisite for subsequent review and audit.

The rating agencies also never reviewed samples of loan files before giving AAA ratings to nonprime mortgage financial derivatives. The “AAA’ rating is supposed to indicate that there is virtually no credit risk, the risk being thought equivalent to U.S. government bonds, which the finance industry refers to as “risk-free.”  The rating agencies attained their lucrative profits because they gave AAA ratings to nonprime financial derivatives exposed to staggering default risk. A graph of their profits in this era rises like a stairway to the stars. Turning a blind eye to the mortgage fraud epidemic was the only way the rating agencies could hope to attain, and sustain, those profit levels. If they had engaged forensic accountants to review even small samples of nonprime loans, they would have been confronted with only two real choices: (1) rating them as toxic waste, which would have made it impossible to sell the associated nonprime financial derivatives or (2) documenting that they themselves were committing, aiding and abetting, a blatant accounting fraud.

A statement made during the 2008 House of Representatives hearings on the topic of the rating agencies’ role in the crisis represents an apt summary of how the financial and government communities viewed the actions and attitudes of the three rating agencies in the years leading up to the subprime crisis. An S&P employee, testified that “the rating agencies continue to create an even bigger monster, the CDO [collateralized debt obligation] market. Let’s hope we all are wealthy and retired by the time this house of cards falters.”

With respect to bank executives, the examples of proved and alleged deception during the period are so numerous as to almost defy belief. Among the most noteworthy are:

–The SEC investigated Citigroup as to whether it misled investors by failing to disclose critical details about the troubled mortgage assets it was holding as the financial markets began to collapse in 2007. The investigation came only after some of the mortgage-related securities being held by Citigroup were downgraded by an independent rating agency. Shortly thereafter, Citigroup announced quarterly losses of around $10 billion on its subprime-mortgage holdings, an astounding amount that directly contributed to the resignation of then CEO, Charles Prince;

–The SEC conducted similar investigations into Bank of America, now-defunct Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch (now a part of Bank of America);

–The SEC filed civil fraud charges against Angelo Mozilo, cofounder and former CEO of Countrywide Financial Corp. In the highest-profile government legal action against a chief executive related to the financial crisis, the SEC charged Mozilo with insider trading and alleged failure to disclose material information to shareholders, according to people familiar with the matter. Mozilo sold $130 million of Countrywide stock in the first half of 2007 under an executive sales plan, according to government filings.

As the ACFE points out, every financial services company has its own unique internal structure and management policies. Some are more effective than others in reducing the risk of management-level fraud. The best anti-fraud controls are those designed to reduce the risk of a specific type of fraud threatening the organization.  Designing effective anti-fraud controls depends directly on accurate assessment of those risks. How, after all, can management or the board be expected to design and implement effective controls if it is unclear about which frauds are most threatening? That’s why a fraud risk assessment (FRA) is essential to any anti-fraud Program; an essential exercise designed to determine the specific types of fraud to which your client organization is most vulnerable within the context of its existing anti-fraud controls. This enables management to design, customize, and implement the best controls to minimize fraud risk throughout the organization.  Again, according to the ACFE (joined by the Institute of Internal Auditors, and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants), an organization’s contracted CFEs backed by its own internal audit team can play a direct role in this all-important effort.

Your client’s internal auditors should consider the organization’s assessment of fraud risk when developing their annual audit plan and review management’s fraud management capabilities periodically. They should interview and communicate regularly with those conducting the organization’s risk assessments, as well as with others in key positions throughout the organization, to help them ensure that all fraud risks have been considered appropriately. When performing proactive fraud risk assessment engagements, CFEs should direct adequate time and attention to evaluating the design and operation of internal controls specifically related to fraud risk management. We should exercise professional skepticism when reviewing activities and be on guard for the tell-tale signs of fraud. Suspected frauds uncovered during an engagement should be treated in accordance with a well-designed response plan consistent with professional and legal standards.

As this month’s lecture recommends, CFEs and forensic accountants can also contribute value by proactively taking a proactive role in support of the organization’s underlying ethical culture.