Tag Archives: anti-fraud training

Working Toward Non-Prosecution

A recent major article in the financial trade press alluded to the importance of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act as a piece of US government regulation of which it behooves all fraud examiners to be aware. The reference got me to thinking about the confusion that still persists regarding certain provisions of the Act among corporate players as reported in the article in question following several high profile prosecutions. Enacted to great fanfare in 1977, the purpose of the FCPA was to prevent the bribery by the agents of US corporations of foreign government officials when those agents were negotiating overseas contracts. The FCPA imposes heavy fines and penalties for both organizations and individuals. The two major provisions address: 1) bribery violations and 2) improper corporate books and records as well as maintenance of inadequate internal controls. Methods of enforcement and interpretation of the law in the US have continued to evolve to the present day.

From the first, the FCPA spawned questions of definition and interpretation for those trying to comply, i.e., who is a “foreign official?” What is the difference between a “facilitation” payment and a bribe? Who is considered a third party? How does the government define “adequate” internal controls to detect and deter bribery and corruption?

The United Kingdom enacted its UK Bribery Act in July 2010 which really represented the first real attempt at an anti-bribery law to address some of these issues. The UK Bribery Act introduced the concept of “adequate procedures”, that if followed could allow affirmative defense for an organization under investigation for bribery. The UK Bribery Act recommended several internal controls for combating bribery and offered the incentive of a more favorable result for those who could document compliance. Among the controls:

• Establish anti-bribery procedures;
• A top corporate level commitment to prevent bribery;
• Periodic and documented risk assessments;
• Proportionate due diligence;
• Communication of bribery prevention policies and procedures to all involved parties to corporate transactions;
• Monitoring of anti-bribery procedures.

The concept of an affirmative defense for adequate procedures creates quite a contrast to the US FCPA which only offers affirmative defense for payments of bona fide expenses or small gifts within the legal limits of the foreign countries involved. The UK Bribery Act simply equates all facilitation and influence payments to bribery, thus eliminating much confusion. Finally, the UK Bribery Act dealt with the problem of defining a foreign official by making it illegal to bribe anyone regardless of government affiliation. Several countries such as Russia, Canada and Brazil have enacted or updated their anti-bribery regulations to parallel the guidelines presented in the UK Bribery Act. The key to the effectiveness remains enforcement.

Then, in 2010, the US Department of Justice and the Securities Exchange Commission released a guide book introducing several hallmarks of an effective FCPA compliance program. The publication of the guidebook is a development which, according to the article I was reading, many auditors and CFE’s remain unaware, even today. The Resource Guide provides our client companies with the tools to demonstrate a proactive approach to the deterrence of bribery and corruption. Companies found out of compliance may receive some consideration during the fines and penalty stage of their cases.

The guidebook recommends that companies doing business overseas:
• Establish a code of conduct that specifically addresses the risk of bribery and corruption;
• Set the tone by designating a Chief Compliance Officer to oversee all anti-bribery and anti-corruption activities;
• Train all employees to be thoroughly prepared to address bribery and corruption risk and document that the training took place;
• Perform fraud risk assessments of potential bribery and corruption pitfalls by country and industry;
• Review the anti-corruption program annually to assess the effectiveness of policies, procedures and controls;
• Perform audits (routine and surprise) and monitor foreign business operations to assure strict compliance with the published code of conduct;
• Ensure proper legal contractual terms exist within agreements with third parties that address compliance with anti-bribery and corruption laws and regulations;
• Investigate and respond promptly and appropriately to all allegations of bribery and corruption;
• Take proper disciplinary action for violations of anti-bribery and corruption laws and regulations;
• Perform adequate due diligence that addresses the risk of bribery and corruption performed by third parties prior to entering into any business relationship.

Fraud examiners should make their clients aware that a company which can provide evidence of compliance with these recommendations is afforded many advantages if they’re ever charged with a violation of the Act. Among them is a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA). Under a Deferred Prosecution Agreement the Department of Justice files a court document charging the organization while simultaneously requesting that prosecution be deferred in order to allow the company to demonstrate good conduct going forward. The DPA is an agreement by the organization to: cooperate with the government, accept the factual findings of the investigation, and admit culpability if so warranted. Additionally, companies may be directed to participate in compliance and remediation efforts, e.g., a court-appointed monitor. If the company completes the term of the DPA the DOJ will dismiss the charges without imposing fines and penalties!

The DOJ and the company may alternatively even enter into a Non-Prosecution Agreement. Under such an agreement the DOJ retains the right to file charges against the organization at a later time should the organization fail to comply. The NPA is not filed with the courts but is maintained by both the DOJ and the company and posted on the DOJ website. Similar to the DPA, the organization agrees to monetary penalties, ongoing cooperation, admission to relevant facts, as well as compliance and remediation of policies, procedures and controls. If the company complies with the agreement, the DOJ will, again, drop all charges.

The good news is that, since publication of the guidebook, corporate compliance programs have continued to mature, and are now generally accepted as just another cost of conducting business in a global marketplace. The US government is continuing to clarify expectations with regard to corporate responsibility at home and abroad, and working with international partners and their compliance programs.

Increased cooperation between the public and private sectors to address these issues will assist in leveling the playing field in the global marketplace. Non-government and civil society organizations, i.e. World Bank and Transparency International, are playing a key role in this effort. These organizations set standards, apply pressure on foreign governments to enact stricter anti-bribery and corruption laws, and enforce those laws. Coordination and cooperation among government, business and civil entities, reduce the incidences of bribery and corruption and increase opportunities for companies to compete fairly and ethically in the global marketplace. Hence, every fraud examiner and assurance professional should strongly support these efforts while strongly encouraging our clients to become familiar with and comply with the provisions of the recently updated 2010 guidebook.

It’s a Reputation Thing

According to the ACFE presenter at one of our live events, 6.4 percent of worldwide fraud cases occur in the education sector, which represents the fifth most-targeted industry by fraudsters out of 23 reported by members of the ACFE. And the three most frequent fraud schemes reported as perpetrated in the education sector are billing schemes, fraudulent expense reimbursements and corruption schemes. Most of the reporting CFE’s also seem to agree that nonprofit institutions’ greatest fraud related challenge is mitigating reputational risk. Good faculty members and students won’t join fraudulent universities. Governments and donors won’t financially contribute to organizations they don’t trust.

Thus, institutions of higher learning aren’t anymore immune to fraud than any other large organization. However, the probability of occurrence of fraud risks may be somewhat higher in colleges and universities because of their promoted environment of collegiality, which may lead to more decentralization and a consequent lack of basic internal controls. Federal and state governments, as well as donors, have increased the pressure on universities to implement better governance practices and on their boards of governors to exercise their fiduciary responsibilities more efficiently.

Which brought our speaker to the issue of regular risk assessments, but tailored specifically to the unique needs of the educational environment. Colleges and universities around the world should be actively encouraged by their governing boards and counsels to perform regular fraud risk assessments and vigorously implement and enforce compliance with targeted internal controls, such as proper segregation of duties and surprise audits. Of course, as with all organizations, universities can prevent fraud by segregating a task of requesting a financial transaction from those of approving it, processing the payment, reconciling the transaction to the appropriate accounts and safeguarding the involved asset(s). Surprise audits should be just that: unannounced supervisory reviews. This creates not just an atmosphere of collegiality and support but one in which the perceived opportunity to commit fraud is lowered.

As I’ve indicated again and again in the pages of this blog, the most powerful fraud prevention measure any organization can take is the education of its staff, top to bottom. Educating faculty, staff members and students about the university’s ethics (or anti-fraud) policies is important not only to prevent fraud but to preserve the institution’s reputation. It’s also important to develop ethics policies carefully and implement them in accordance with the particular culture and character of the institution.

Culturally, universities, like most nonprofit educational institutions, don’t like heavy-handed policies, or controls, because faculty members perceive them as impediments to their research and teaching activities. After going through an appropriate anti-fraud training program, every employee and faculty member (many higher-education institutions actually view faculty above the instructor level as quasi-independent contractors) should come to understand the nature and role of internal controls as well as the negative consequences associated with fraud.

University administrators, faculty and staff members can be motivated to prevent fraud on a basis of self-interest because its occurrence might affect their chances of promotions and salary increases and tarnish the external reputation of the university, which could then affect its financial situation and, hence, their individual prospects.

ACFE training tells us that organizational administrators who don’t get honest feedback and don’t hear and address fraud tips quickly can get in trouble politically, legally and strategically. All universities should implement user-friendly reporting mechanisms that allow anyone to anonymously report fraud and irregular activities plus deliver healthy feedback on leadership’s strengths and weaknesses. This will keep direct lines of communication open among all employees and senior university administrators. These tools will not only strengthen the fight against fraud but also advance the university’s strategic mission and refine senior administrators’ leadership styles. You can’t manage something you can’t see. Such tried and true mechanisms as independent internal audit departments and/or involved audit committees, should provide effective oversight of reporting mechanisms.

Still, many universities still resist pressure from their external stakeholders to implement hotlines because of concern they might create climates of mistrust among faculty members. Faculty members’ tendency to resist any effort to have their work examined and questioned may explain this resistance. Necessary cultural changes take some time, but educational institutions can achieve them with anti-fraud training and a substantial dose of ethical leadership and tone at the top.

From a legal perspective, colleges and universities, like any other nonprofit organization, must proactively demonstrate due diligence by adopting measures to prevent fraud and damage to their individual reputations. They’re also financially and ethically indebted to governments and donors to educate tomorrow’s leaders by demonstrating their ability to ensure that their internal policies and practices are sound.

Senior university administrators also must be able to show that they investigate all credible allegations of fraud. In addition, independent, professional and confidential fraud investigations conducted by you, the CFE, allow a victim university and its senior administrators to:

— determine the exact sources of losses and hopefully identify the perpetrator(s);
— potentially recover some or all of financial damages;
— collect evidence for potential criminal or civil lawsuits;
— avoid possible discrimination charges from terminated employees;
— identify internal control weaknesses and address them;
— reduce future losses and meet budget targets;
— comply with legal requirements such as senior administrators’ fiduciary duties of loyalty and reasonable care;
— reduce imputed university liability which may result from employee misconduct;

As CFE’s we should encourage client universities to adequately train and sensitize administrators, faculty and staff members about their ethics policies and the general problems related to occupational fraud in general. Administrators should also consider implementation of anonymous reporting programs and feedback processes among all stakeholders and among the senior administration. They should perform regular fraud risk assessments and implement targeted internal controls, such as proper segregation of duties and conflict-of-interest disclosures. Senior administrators should lead by example and adopt irreproachable behaviors at all times (tone at the top). Finally, faculty members’ job incentives should be aligned with the university’s mission and goals to avoid dysfunctional and illegal practices. All easier said than done, but, as a profession, let’s encourage them to do it when we have the chance!

Just Like Me

During a joint training seminar between our Chapter and the Virginia State Police held a number of years ago, I took the opportunity to ask the attendees (many of whom are practicing CFE’s) to name the most common fraud type they’d individually investigated in the past year. Turned out that one form or another of affinity fraud won hands down, at least here in Central Virginia.

This most common type of fraud targets specific sectors of society such as religious affiliates, the fraudster’s own relatives or acquaintances, retirees, racial groups, or professional organizations of which the fraudster is a member. Our Chapter members indicate that when a scammer ingratiates himself within a group and gains trust, an affinity fraud of some kind can almost always be expected to be the result.

Regulators and other law enforcement personnel typically attempt to identify instances of affinity fraud in order to prosecute the perpetrator and return the fraudulently obtained goods to the victims. However, affinity fraud tends to be an under reported crime since victims may be embarrassed that they so easily fell prey to the fraudster in the first place or they may remain connected to the offender because of emotional bonding and/or cultivated trust. Reluctance to report the crime also frequently stems from a misplaced belief that the fraudster is fundamentally a good guy or gal and will ultimately do the right thing and return any funds taken. In order to stop affinity fraud, regulators and law enforcement must obviously first be able to detect and identify the crime, caution potential investors, and prevent future frauds by taking appropriate legal actions against the perpetrators.

The poster boy for affinity fraud is, of course, Bernard Madoff. The Madoff tragedy is considered an affinity fraud because the vast majority of his clientele shared Madoff’s religion, Judaism. Over the years, Madoff’s list of victims grew to include prominent persons in the finance, retail and entertainment industries. This particular affinity fraud was unprecedented because it was perpetrated by Madoff over several decades, and his customers were defrauded of approximately twenty billion dollars. It can be debated whether the poor economy, lack of investor education, or ready access to diverse persons over the internet has led to an increase in affinity fraud but there can be no doubt that the internet makes it increasingly easy for fraudsters to pose as members of any community they target. And, it’s clear that affinity frauds have dramatically increased in recent years. In fact, affinity fraud has been identified by the ACFE as one of the top five investment schemes each year since 1998.

Affinity frauds assume different forms, e.g. information phishing expeditions, investment scams, or charity cons. However, most affinity frauds have a common element and entail a pyramid-type of Ponzi scheme. In these types of frauds, the offender uses new funds from fresh victims as payment to initial investors. This creates the illusion that the scam is profitable and additional victims would be wise to immediately invest. These types of scams inevitably collapse when it either becomes clear to investors or to law enforcement that the fraudster is not legitimate or that there are no more financial backers for the fraud. Although most fraud examiners may be familiar with the Madoff scandal, there are other large scale affinity frauds perpetrated across the United States almost on a daily basis that continue to shape how regulators and other law enforcement approach these frauds.

Perpetrators of affinity frauds work hard, sometime over whole years, to make their scams appealing to their targeted victims. Once the offenders have targeted a community or group, they seek out respected community leaders to vouch for them to potential investors. By having an esteemed figurehead who appears to be knowledgeable about the investment and endorses it, the offender creates legitimacy for the con. Additionally, others in the community are less likely to ask questions about a venture or investment if a community leader recommends or endorses the fraudster. In the Madoff case, Madoff himself was an esteemed member of the community. As a former chair of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and owner of a company ranked sixth largest market maker on the National Association of Securities Dealers Automated Quotations (NASDAQ), Madoff’s reputation in the financial services industry was impeccable and people were eager to invest with him.

The ACFE indicates that projection bias is yet another reason why affinity fraudsters are able to continually perpetrate these types of crimes. Psychological projection is a concept introduced by Sigmund Freud to explain the unconscious transference of a person’s own characteristics onto another person. The victims in affinity fraud cases project their own morals onto the fraudsters, presuming that the criminals are honest and trustworthy. However, the similarities are almost certainly the reason why the fraudster targeted the victims in the first place. In some cases when victims are interviewed after the fact, they indicate to law enforcement that they trusted the fraudster as if they were a family member because they believed that they shared the same value system.

Success of affinity fraud stems from the higher degree of trust and reliance associated with many of the groups targeted for such conduct. Because of the victim’s trust in the offender, the targeted persons are less likely to fully investigate the investment scheme presented to them. The underlying rationale of affinity fraud is that victims tend to be more trusting, and, thus, more likely to invest with individuals they have a connection with – family, religious, ethnic, social, or professional. Affinity frauds are often difficult to detect because of the tight-knit nature common to some groups targeted for these schemes. Victims of these frauds are less likely to inform appropriate law enforcement of their problems and the frauds tend to continue until an investor or outsider to the target group finally starts to ask questions.

Because victims in affinity frauds are less likely to question or go outside of the group for assistance, information or tips regarding the fraud may not ever reach regulators or law enforcement. In religious cases, there is often an unwritten rule that what happens in church stays there, with disputes handled by the church elders or the minister. Once the victims place their trust in the fraudster, they are less likely to believe they have been defrauded and also unlikely to investigate the con. Regulators and other law enforcement personnel can also learn from prior failures in identifying or stopping affinity frauds. Because the Madoff fraud is one of the largest frauds in history, many studies have been conducted to determine how this fraud could have been stopped sooner. In hindsight, there were numerous red flags that indicated Madoff’s activity was fraudulent; however, appropriate actions were not taken to halt the scheme. The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) received several complaints against Madoff as early as 1992, including several official complaints filed by Harry Markopolos, a former securities industry professional and fraud investigator. Every step of the way, Madoff appeared to use his charm and manipulative ways to explain away his dealings to the SEC inspection teams. The complaints were not properly investigated and subsequent to Madoff’s arrest, the SEC was the target of a great deal of criticism. The regulators obviously did not apply appropriate professional skepticism while doing their jobs and relied on Madoff’s reputation and representations rather than evidence to the contrary. In the wake of this scandal, regulatory reforms were deemed a priority by the SEC and other similar agencies.

Education is needed for the investing public and the regulators and law enforcement personnel alike to ensure that they all have the proper knowledge and tools to be able to understand, detect, stop, and prevent these types of frauds. This is where CFEs and forensic accountants are uniquely qualified to offer their communities much needed assistance. Affinity frauds are not easily anticipated by the victims. Madoff whistleblower Markopolos asserted that “nobody thinks one of their own is going to cheat them”. Affinity frauds will not be curtailed unless the public, we, the auditing and fraud examination communities, and regulators and other law enforcement personnel are all involved.

Taken Hostage

by Rumbi Petrozzello
2019 Vice President – Central Virginia ACFE Chapter

On March 22, 2018, I flew into the Atlanta Airport and stopped by the airport’s EMS offices to request an incident report. The gentleman who greeted me at the entrance to the offices was very kind and asked me to wait while he pulled up the details of the report for me. He called over to his coworker, who was sitting in front of a computer, and asked him for help. I heard the coworker clicking on his mouse a few times and then he said that his machine didn’t seem to be working. “It hasn’t been working all morning,” he added. The gentleman then gave me a phone number to call for assistance and apologized for not being more helpful. After I called the number, got voicemail and left a message, I became concerned because I was leaving the country the next day for a week and a half and so hoped that someone would get back to me that day.

Unfortunately, no one had called me back by the time I left. When I returned, I found no voicemail. I called again and left a message. A week after that, the airport EMS Chief returned my call with apologies for the delay – their computers had been down, and he was only now able to start getting back to people. Because I had been out of the country and not really following the news, it was only after a couple of months that I put two and two together. At that point I was working on Eye on Fraud, a publication of the AICPA’s Fraud Task Force. The edition was on Ransomware and as I looked at the information concerning Atlanta, I noticed the dates and realized that the day that I flew into Atlanta and visited the EMS office was the same day that the city of Atlanta was struck by a ransomware attack that crippled the city for over a week and resulted in costs to the city exceeding $2.6 million; a lot more than the $52,000 that was demanded in ransom by the attackers. In late November, two Iranians were indicted for the Atlanta and other attacks. The Atlanta ransomware attack featured many characteristics shared by such attacks, be they on individuals, companies, or governments.

Ransomware attacks have been a problem for decades; the first such documented attack took place in 1989. At that time the malicious code was delivered to victims’ computers via floppy disk and the whole exploit was very easy for victims to reverse. 2006 saw a big uptick in ransomware attacks and, today, ransomware is big business for individual cyber criminals and for organized gangs alike, earning them about a billion dollars in 2016.

Ransomware is a form of malware (malicious software), and works in one of two general ways:

1. Crypto-ransomware encrypts hard drives or files and folders.
2. Locker-ransomware locks users out of their machines, without employing encryption.

As time has gone on, ransomware has become more complex and ransomware attacks more sophisticated. One way in which cyber criminals break into computer systems is via human engineering. This can take the form of an email with a malicious attachment or a link to a compromised website. Cyber criminals also take advantage of known weaknesses in computer operating systems. The WannaCry ransomware, which swept the globe several years ago, took advantage of a flaw in Microsoft Windows. This underscores how essential it is to provide cyber training to employees and to update this training often. Employees must be taught to always be vigilant and on the lookout for such attacks, and to maintain awareness of how such threats are constantly changing and migrating. All it takes is a single employee lapse in judgment and attention for malware to get into a business’s computer system. It’s also essential to keep computers and software up to date with the latest patches. WannaCry was successful in part because Microsoft had discontinued its support of some versions of Windows, including for Windows XP and Windows Server 2003. The amount of money companies thought they were saving by continuing to use old unsupported software was dwarfed by the cost of recovery from malware attacks specifically targeting that software.

When CFEs and forensic accountants dialogue with clients about ransomware attack scenarios, we should remind them that cyber criminals are equal opportunity offenders when it comes to such exploits. Employees should be alert to this whether they are working on an employer’s machine or on a personal one. Ransomware has now made its way into the smartphone space, so employees should be made aware that heightened vigilance should extend even to their smartphones. CFEs should additionally work with clients to fund penetration and phishing tests to determine how effective staff training has been and to highlight areas for improvement.

Both individuals and companies should have a plan on how they will deal with a possible ransomware attack. A well-thought out plan can minimize the effects of an attack and can also mean that the reaction to the attack is measured and not mounted on the basis of uncoordinated panic. For example, when LabCorp was attacked in July 2018, the company contained the spread of the malware in less than an hour. Its, therefore, doubly important that we CFEs and forensic accountants work with IT specialists to formulate an advance plan in case of a ransomware or other malware, attack.

Experts recommend that ransom should not be paid. Clients need to be made to understand that when their systems are taken hostage, they are dealing with criminals and criminals are, more often than not, not to be trusted. When the city of Leeds, Alabama, was attacked, the city paid the cyber criminals $12,000 in ransom. Despite making this payment, the hackers restored only a limited number of files. The city was then faced with the expenditure of additional funds in the attempt to recover or rebuild the remaining files. Sometimes hackers will disappear with ransom and restore nothing. In the face of this, companies and individuals should be encouraged to have back up and restoration plans. To be useful, backups must be made regularly and kept physically separate from the machine or network being protected. The recovery plan should be tested at least annually.

Ransomware exploits are not going away any time soon. Ransomware attacks are a way to get money, not only through the ransom demanded itself but also through access to other sensitive information belonging to employees and clients. Often the hacker will demand a nominal amount in ransom and sell the information stolen by access to the company’s network for a lot more.

We, as CFEs and forensic accountants, can help our client address the ballooning threat in a number of ways:

• by performing a risk assessments of clients’ systems and processes, to identify weaknesses and areas for control improvement.
• by providing staff training on security best practices. This training should be updated at least once a year; in addition to updating staff on changes, this will also serve to remind employees to be vigilant. This training must include everyone in a company, even top management and the board.
• by reminding clients to keep software up to date and to consider upgrades or total changes when an application is no longer supported. Encourage management to have software updates automated on employees’ machines.
• by working with clients to create a backup and recovery system, that features off-site backups. This program should be tested regularly, and backups should be reviewed to ensure their integrity.
• by working with IT and third-party vendors on annual penetration and social engineering testing at client locations. The third-party vendors used should be rotated ever three years.

CSO Online predicts that ransomware attacks will rise to one every 14 seconds by the end of 2019. We CFEs and forensic accountants should work with our clients to innovate effective ways to protect themselves and to mitigate the effects of the future attacks that certainly will occur. The key is to ensure that clients remain educated, vigilant and prepared.

Cyberfraud & Data Breaches May 2018 Training Event

On May 16th and 17th, our Chapter, supported by our partners national, ACFE and the Virginia State Police, will present our sixteenth Spring training event, this time on the subject of CYBERFRAUD AND DATA BREACHES.  Our presenter will be CARY E. MOORE, CFE, CISSP, MBA; ACFE Presenter Board member and internationally renowned author and authority on every aspect of cybercrime.  CLICK HERE  to see an outline of the training, the agenda and Cary’s bio.  If you decide to do so, you may REGISTER HERE.  Attendees will receive 16 CPE credits, and a printed manual of over 300 pages detailing every subject covered in the training.  In addition, as a door prize, we will be awarding, by drawing, a printed copy of the 2017 Fraud Examiners Manual, a $200 value!

As the relentless wave of cyberattacks continues, all our client organizations are under intense pressure from key stakeholders and regulators to implement and enhance their anti-fraud programs to protect customers, employees and the valuable information in their possession. According to research from IBM Security and the Ponemon Institute, the average total cost per company, per event of a data breach is US $3.62 million. Initial damage estimates of a single breach, while often staggering, may not consider less obvious and often undetectable threats such as theft of intellectual property, espionage, destruction of data, attacks on core operations or attempts to disable critical infrastructure. These knock-on effects can last for years and have devastating financial, operational and brand ramifications.

Given the broad regulatory pressures to tighten anti-fraud cyber security controls and the visibility surrounding cyber risk, a number of proposed regulations focused on improving cyber security risk management programs have been introduced in the United States over the past few years by various governing bodies of which CFEs need to be aware. One of the more prominent is a regulation issued by the New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) that prescribes certain minimum cyber security standards for those entities regulated by the NYDFS. Based on the entity’s risk assessment, the NYDFS law has specific requirements around data encryption, protection and retention, third party information security, application security, incident response and breach. notification, board reporting, and annual certifications.

However, organizations continue to struggle to report on the overall effectiveness of their cyber security risk management and anti-fraud programs. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has released a cyber security risk management reporting framework intended to help organizations expand cyber risk reporting to a broad range of internal and external users, including the C-suite and the board of directors (BoD). The AICPA’s reporting framework is designed to address the need for greater stakeholder transparency by providing in-depth, easily consumable information about an organization’s cyber risk management
program. The cyber security risk management examination uses an independent, objective reporting approach and employs broader and more flexible criteria. For example, it allows for the selection and utilization of any control framework considered suitable and available in establishing the entity’s cyber security objectives and developing and maintaining controls within the entity’s cyber security risk management program, whether it is the US National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)’s Cybersecurity Framework, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)’s ISO 27001/2 and related frameworks, or internally developed frameworks based on a combination of sources. The examination is voluntary, and applies to all types of entities, but should be considered a leading practice that provides the C-suite, boards and other key stakeholders clear insight into an organization’s cyber security program and identifies gaps or pitfalls that leave organizations vulnerable.

Cyber security risk management examination reports are vital to the fraud control program of any organization doing business on-line.  Such reports help an organization’s BoD establish appropriate oversight of a company’s cyber security risk program and credibly communicate its effectiveness to stakeholders, including investors, analysts, customers, business partners and regulators. By leveraging this information, boards can challenge management’s assertions around the effectiveness of their cyber risk management programs and drive more effective decision making. Active involvement and oversight from the BoD can help ensure that an organization is paying adequate attention to cyber risk management. The board can help shape expectations for reporting on cyber threats and fraud attempts while also advocating for greater transparency and assurance around the effectiveness of the program.

Organizations that choose to utilize the AICPA’s cyber security attestation reporting framework and perform an examination of their cyber security program may be better positioned to gain competitive advantage and enhance their brand in the marketplace. For example, an outsource retail service provider (OSP) that can provide evidence that a well-developed and sound cyber security risk management program is in place in its organization can proactively provide the report to current and potential customers, evidencing that it has implemented appropriate controls to protect the sensitive IT assets and valuable data over which it maintains access. At the same time, current and potential retailor customers of an OSP want the third parties with whom they engage to also place a high level of importance on cyber security. Requiring a cyber security examination report as part of the selection criteria would offer transparency into
outsourcers’ cyber security programs and could be a determining factor in the selection process.

The value of addressing cyber security related fraud concerns and questions by CFEs before regulatory mandates are established or a crisis occurs is quite clear. The knowledgeable CFE can help our client organizations view the new cyber security attestation reporting frameworks as an opportunity to enhance their existing cyber security and anti-fraud programs and gain competitive advantage. The attestation reporting frameworks address the needs of a variety of key stakeholder groups and, in turn, limit the communication and compliance burden. CFE client organizations that view the cyber security reporting landscape as an opportunity can use it to lead, navigate and disrupt in today’s rapidly evolving cyber risk environment.

Please decide to join us for our May Training Event on this vital and timely topic!  YOU MAY REGISTER 0N-LINE HERE.  You can pay with PayPal (you don’t need a PayPal account; you can use any credit card) or just print an invoice and submit your payment by snail mail!

People, People & People

Our Chapter’s Vice-President Rumbi Petrolozzi’s comment in her last blog post to the effect that one of the most challenging tasks for the forensic accountant or auditor working proactively is defining the most effective and efficient scope of work for a risk-based assurance project. Because resources are always scarce, assurance professionals need to make sure they can meet both quality and scheduling requirements whilst staying within our fixed resource and cost constraints.

An essential step in defining the scope of a project is identifying the critical risks to review and the controls required to manage those risks. An efficient scope focuses on the subset of controls (i.e., the key controls) necessary to provide assurance. Performing tests of controls that are not critical is not efficient. Similarly, failing to test controls that could be the source of major fraud vulnerabilities leads to an ineffective audit.  As Rumbi points out, and too often overlooked, the root cause of most risk and control failures is people. After all, outstanding people are required to make an organization successful, and failing to hire, retain, and train a competent team of employees inevitably leads to business failure.

In an interview, a few decades ago, one of America’s most famous business leaders was asked what his greatest challenges were in turning one of his new companies around from failure to success. He is said to have responded that his three greatest challenges were “people, people, and people.” Certainly, when assurance professionals or management analyze the reasons for data breaches and control failures, people are generally found to be the root cause. For example, weaknesses may include (echoing Rumbi):

Insufficiently trained personnel to perform the work. A common material weakness in compliance with internal control over financial reporting requirements is a lack of experienced financial reporting personnel within a company. In more traditional anti-fraud process reviews, examiners often find that control weaknesses arise because individuals don’t understand the tasks they have to perform.

Insufficient numbers to perform the work. When CPAs find that important reconciliations are not performed timely, inventories are not counted, a backlog in transaction processing exists, or agreed-upon corrective actions to address prior audit findings aren’t completed, managers frequently offer the excuse that their area is understaffed.

Poor management and leadership. Fraud examiners find again and again, that micromanagers and dictators can destroy a solid finance function. At the other end of the spectrum, the absence of leadership, motivation, and communication can cause whole teams to flounder. Both situations generally lead to a failure to perform key controls consistently. For example, poor managers have difficulty retaining experienced professionals to perform account reconciliations on time and with acceptable levels of quality leading directly to an enhanced level of vulnerability to numerous fraud scenarios.

Ineffective human resource practices. In some cases, management may choose to accept a certain level of inefficiency and retain individuals who are not performing up to par. For instance, in an example cited by one of our ACFE training event speakers last year, the financial analysis group of a U.S. manufacturing company was failing to provide management with timely business information. Although the department was sufficiently staffed, the team members were ineffective. Still, management did not have the resolve to terminate poor performers, for fear it would not be possible to hire quality analysts to replace the people who were terminated.

In such examples, people-related weaknesses result in business process key control failures often leading to the facilitation of subsequent frauds. The key control failure was the symptom, and the people-related weakness was the root cause. As a result, the achievement of the business objective of fraud prevention is rendered at risk.

Consider a fraud examiner’s proactive assessment of an organization’s procurement function. If the examiner finds that all key controls are designed adequately and operating effectively, in compliance with company policy, and targeted cost savings are being generated, should s/he conclude the controls are adequate? What if that department has a staff attrition rate of 25 percent and morale is low? Does that change the fraud vulnerability assessment? Clearly, even if the standard set of controls were in place, the function would not be performing at optimal levels.  Just as people problems can lead to risk and control failures, exceptional people can help a company achieve success. In fact, an effective system of internal control considers the adequacy of controls not only to address the risks related to poor people-related management but also to recognize reduction in fraud vulnerability due to excellence in people-related management.

The people issue should be addressed in at least two phases of the assurance professional’s review process: planning and issue analysis (i.e., understanding weaknesses, their root cause, and the appropriate corrective actions).  In the planning phase, the examiner should consider how people-related anti-fraud controls might impact the review and which controls should be included in the scope. The following questions might be considered in relation to anti-fraud controls over staffing, organization, training, management and leadership, performance appraisals, and employee development:

–How significant would a failure of people-related controls be to the achievement of objectives and the management of business risk covered by the examination?
–How critical is excellence in people management to the achievement of operational excellence related to the objectives of the review?

Issue analysis requires a different approach. Reviewers may have to ask the question “why” three or more times before they get to the root cause of a problem. Consider the following little post-fraud dialogue (we’ve all heard variations) …

CFE: “Why weren’t the reconciliations completed on time?”
MANAGER. “Because we were busy closing the books and one staff member was on vacation.”
CFE: “You are still expected to complete the reconciliations, which are critical to closing the books. Even with one person on vacation, why were you too busy?”
MANAGER: “We just don’t have enough people to get everything done, even when we work through weekends and until late at night.”
CFE: “Why don’t you have enough people?”
MANAGER: “Management won’t let me hire anybody else because of cost constraints.”
CFE: “Why won’t management let you hire anybody? Don’t they realize the issue?”
MANAGER: “Well, I think they do, but I have been so busy that I may not have done an effective job of explaining the situation. Now that you are going to write this up as a control weakness, maybe they will.”

The root cause of the problem in this scenario is that the manager responsible for reconciliations failed to provide effective leadership. She did not communicate the problem and ensure she had sufficient resources to perform the work assigned. The root cause is a people problem, and the reviewer should address that directly in his or her final report. If the CFE only reports that the reconciliations weren’t completed on time, senior management might only press the manager to perform better without understanding the post-fraud need for both performance improvement and additional staff.

In many organizations, it’s difficult for a reviewer to discuss people issues with management, even when these issues can be seen to directly and clearly contribute to fraud vulnerably. Assurance professionals may find it tricky, for political reasons to recommend the hiring of additional staff or to explain that the existing staff members do not have the experience or training necessary to perform their assigned tasks. Additionally, we are likely to run into political resistance when reporting management and leadership failure. But, that’s the job assurance professionals are expected to perform; to provide an honest, objective assessment of the condition of critical anti-fraud controls including those related to people.  If the scope of our work does not consider people risks, or if reviewers are unable to report people-related weaknesses, we are not adding the value we should. We’re also failing to report on matters critical to the maintenance and extension of the client’s anti-fraud program.

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.

With a Little Help

by Rumbi Petrozzello, CPA/CFF, CFE
2018 Vice-President – Central Virginia Chapter ACFE

In November, my husband and I headed out to our usual spot, on Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn, to cheer for those running the New York marathon. A marathon, for those who don’t know, is 26.2 miles long. People who complete marathons get nothing but respect from me – success in marathoning only comes with a lot of dedication and training. Many people spend at least six months following a training plan that is not just about building distance. For instance, when learning (and it is learning) how to complete 26.2 miles of running (or walking for that matter) people must learn how to remain fueled and hydrated while running. This training also then applies to making lifestyle adjustments such as changing one’s diet and sleeping habits. Years ago, when I was training for the New York Marathon, friends knew to not call after 10PM because I was going to bed early to get enough sleep before early morning runs. I tried not to go out on Friday nights, because I went on my long runs on Saturday mornings and wanted to be energized for them. I spent a lot of time and energy doing research, talking to friends who were seasoned runners and even took running classes to improve my performance and chances of success during the race. Despite the very popular tag line “Just Do It”, a lot of work goes into even getting to that point.

The past few months, I have been doing quite a bit of work that involves assessing the controls that companies have over their systems to detect, deter and prevent fraud and error. Going in, the time energy and money that companies have put into all of this is impressive. They will have an audit committee, an internal audit function and a lot of documentation around what their systems are. There will be volumes of documentation on procedures and protocols and, at the very least, on paper, things look fantastic. However, when we start talking to employees about what their reality is, things often are very different. Some of the issues we found included:

• Staff who did not quite understand what some technical terms meant and, so ignored the parts they didn’t understand. We spoke with people who were very happy to perform and review controls, but they didn’t know how best to do that, and no one was telling them the how;

• Some staff did not understand why they were being asked to change things and, believing that what they had been doing for years constituted a good system, stuck with that;

• In some cases, it wasn’t clear just who was responsible for ownership of a process and that meant, often, that nothing ended up getting done;

• In other instances, staff were given such vague instructions that they resorted to making it up as they went along.

Having the rules is completely useless if your people don’t know what do with them and, just as importantly, why they’re doing what they’ve been asked to do in the first place. What is vital in all of this, is the proper training. As CFEs and Forensic Accountants, we are perfectly positioned to work with clients to ensure that controls and systems go beyond theory. So it’s vitally important for success to constantly work with clients to strengthen systems and controls. This can be done by recommending that our corporate clients:

• Provide training to employees. This training must include the identification of control owners and then the process of working directly with them to ensure that they understand what their roles are and specifically why they need to follow the steps being asked of them. Sometimes, when a control owner is given a requested role, they are told to “review” something. Review can mean anything and often what some people consider to be a review is insufficient for complete understanding. For instance, an employee may think that merely saying they checked something is sufficient. Or that having a verbal conversation is enough proof of review. Be sure to recommend to clients that they let employees know that there should be written evidence of a mandated review and to be equally sure to provide clear examples of what qualifies as evidence of that review.

• Review systems and controls to ensure that they address risks. A company may institute many systems and related procedures but, upon review, a CFE or forensic accountant may find inadequate segregation of duties. You may find that a supervisor is checking a team’s work, but no one is authorizing that supervisor’s. This becomes particularly risky if that supervisor has access to many aspects of the business. A CFE or forensic accountant, can review roles and duties to ensure that duties are sufficiently segregated.

• Training should be ongoing and updated for changes in the company as well as changes in technology and processes. At least once a year, employees should receive updated training and performance reviews. In this way, companies can also learn if there have been material changes that might lead to systems and processes having been adjusted in such a way as to create weakness and holes that could lead to future fraud or error.

It’s all well and good to have ads where famous people run, jump and play and tell you to “just do it”. I remember people rolling their eyes at me when I mentioned that I was dashing to running class – why do you have to learn how to run? Doesn’t everyone know how to do that? Yes, I could run, but with training, I ran a better marathon and lived to tell the tale (unlike the original guy). Yes, employees may know how to do the compliance and control work but as a CFE or forensic accountant, you can help a client company work with their employees to perform their work better, be aware of controls and be cognizant of risk and how to mitigate it. It’s so much better than just doing it.

Internal Auditors as Fraud Auditors

Although fraud prevention is always more effective and less costly than fraud detection (and subsequent investigation), unfortunately prevention is not always possible. That’s why, as CFE’s and forensic accountants we should all be heavy promoters (and supporters) of client internal audit functions.  That is also why we should make it a goal that all employees of our client companies be trained in how to identify the major red flags of fraud they may encounter in their daily activities. Mastering key detection techniques is doubly essential for the internal audit and financial professionals employed by those same enterprises. Our Chapter has long preached that once internal auditors and financial managers know what to look for, there is an enhanced chance that fraud or suspicious activity will be detected one way or another, but only if the organization has the proper monitoring, reporting, and auditing procedures in place.

With that said, many organizations require internal audits of specific business processes and units only once every two or three years. In an age when so much can change so quickly in an internet dominated world, this approach is not the most effective insofar as fraud detection and prevention are concerned. This is especially so because conventional audits were most often not designed to detect fraud in the first place, usually focusing on specified groups of internal controls or compliance with existing policies, laws and regulations. That’s why the ACFE and Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA) now recommend that a fraud risk assessment (FRA) be conducted annually and that the fraud-auditing procedures designed to detect red flags in the high-risk areas identified by the FRA be incorporated into internal audit plans immediately.

There is often a fine line between detection and prevention. In fact, some detection steps overlap with prevention methods, as in the case of conflict of interest, where enforcing a management financial disclosure policy may both detect conflicting financial interests and prevent frauds resulting from them by virtue of the actual detection of the relationships. In most organizations, however, carefully assessing the description of prevention and detection controls demonstrates that there is usually a clear distinction between the two.

The IIA tell us that the internal audit function is a critical element in assessing the effectiveness of an institution’s internal control system. The internal audit consists of procedures to prevent or identify significant inaccurate, incomplete, or unauthorized transactions; deficiencies in safeguarding assets; unreliable financial reporting; and deviations from laws, regulations, and institutional policies. When properly designed and implemented, internal audits provide directors and senior management with timely information about weaknesses in the internal control system, facilitating prompt remedial action. Each institution should have an internal audit function appropriate to its size and the nature and scope of its activities.

This is a complex way of saying that our client’s internal audit function should focus on monitoring the institution’s internal controls, which, although not mentioned explicitly, include controls specifically designed to prevent fraud.  To effectively assess anti-fraud controls, auditors first must exercise detection techniques and procedures that confirm the existence of red flags or actual evidence of potential fraud in the risk areas identified by the FRA.

The Chief Internal Auditor is typically responsible for the following:

–Performing, or contracting for, a control risk assessment documenting the internal auditor’s understanding of significant business activities and associated risks. These assessments typically analyze the risks inherent in each business line, the mitigating control processes, and the resulting residual risk exposure;

–An internal audit plan responsive to results of the control risk assessment. This plan typically specifies key internal control summaries within each business activity, the timing and frequency of internal audit work, and the resource budget;

–An internal audit program that describes audit objectives and specifies procedures performed during each internal audit review;

–An audit report presenting the purpose, scope, and results of each audit. Work papers should be maintained to document the work performed and support audit findings.

There is a joint ACFE-IIA-AICPA document with which every CFE should be familiar.  ‘The Business Risk of Fraud’ provides clarity about the internal auditor’s role in detecting fraud in our client organization’s operations and financial statements. Specifically, the document states that internal auditors should consider the organization’s assessment of fraud risk when developing their annual audit plan and periodically assess management’s fraud detection capabilities. They should also interview and regularly communicate with those conducting the assessments, as well as with others in key positions throughout the company, to help them assess whether all fraud risks have been considered. Moreover, according to the document, when performing audits, internal auditors should devote sufficient time and attention to evaluating the “design and operation” of internal controls related to preventing and detecting significant fraud risks. They should exercise professional skepticism when reviewing activities to be on guard for the signs of potential fraud. Potential frauds uncovered during an engagement should be treated in accordance with a well-defined response plan consistent with professional and legal standards.

Among the most helpful guides for CFEs to recommend to clients for their internal auditors use in planning a detailed audit to detect fraud is the all-important SAS 99 which contains key fraud detection techniques including guidance on the performance of certain financial ratio analysis. Analytical procedures performed during planning may be helpful in identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. However, because such analytical procedures generally use data aggregated at a high level, the results of those analytical procedures provide only a broad initial indication about whether a material misstatement of the financial statements may exist. Accordingly, the results of analytical procedures performed during planning should be considered along with other information gathered by the auditor in identifying the risks of material misstatement due to fraud.

SAS 99 was formulated with the aim of detecting fraud that has a direct impact on “material misstatement.” Essentially this means that anything in the organization’s financial activities that could result in fraud-related misstatements in its financial records should be audited for by using SAS 99 as a guide. SAS 99 breaks down the potential fraudulent causes of material misstatement into two categories:

1. Misstatement due to fraudulent financial reporting (i.e., “book cooking”);

2. Misstatement due to misappropriation of assets (i.e., theft).

The fraud auditing procedures of SAS 99, or of any other reputable audit guidance, can greatly assist internal auditors in distinguishing between actual fraud and error. Often the two have similar characteristics, with the key difference being that of the existence or absence of intent. Toward this end, SAS 99 and other key fraud auditing guidelines provide detailed procedures for gathering evidence of potential fraud based on the lists of fraud risks resulting from the client’s FRA. As SAS 99 states:

‘SAS 99. . . strongly recommend[s] direct involvement by internal auditors in the organization’s fraud-auditing efforts: Internal auditors may conduct proactive auditing to search for corruption, misappropriation of assets, and financial statement fraud. This may include the use of computer-assisted audit techniques to detect types of fraud. Internal auditors also can employ analytical and other procedures to isolate anomalies and perform detailed reviews of high-risk accounts and transactions to identify potential financial statement fraud. The internal auditors should have an independent reporting line directly to the audit committee, enabling them to express any concerns about management’s commitment to appropriate internal controls or to report suspicions or allegations of fraud involving senior management.

Specifically, SAS 99 provides a set of audit responses designed to gather hard evidence of potential fraud that could exist based on what the client organization learned from its FRA. These responses are critical to the auditor’s success in identifying clear red flags of potential fraud in our client’s operations. The responses are wide ranging and include anything from the application of appropriate ratio analytics, to thorough and detailed testing of controls governing specific business process procedures, to the analysis of anomalies in vendor or customer account activity. There are three broad categories into which such detailed internal audit fraud auditing responses fall:

1. The nature of auditing procedures performed may need to be changed to obtain evidence that is more reliable or to obtain additional corroborative information;
2. The timing of substantive tests may need to be modified. The auditor might conclude that substantive testing should be performed at or near the end of the reporting period to best address an identified risk of material misstatement due to fraud;
3. The extent of the procedures applied should reflect the assessment of the risks of material misstatement due to fraud. For example, increasing sample sizes or performing analytical procedures at a more detailed level may be appropriate.

The contribution of a fully staffed and management-supported internal audit function to a subsequent CFE conducted fraud examination can be extraordinary and its value never overstated; no client fraud prevention and detection program should ever be considered complete without one.

Help for the Little Guy

It’s clear to the news media and to every aware assurance professional that today’s cybercriminals are more sophisticated than ever in their operations and attacks. They’re always on the lookout for innovative ways to exploit vulnerabilities in every global payment system and in the cloud.

According to the ACFE, more consumer records were compromised in 2015-16 than in the previous four years combined. Data breach statistics from this year (2017) are projected to be even grimmer due to the growth of increasingly sophisticated attack methods such as increasingly complex malware infections and system vulnerability exploits, which grew tenfold in 2016. With attacks coming in many different forms and from many different channels, consumers, businesses and financial institutions (often against their will) are being forced to gain a better understanding of how criminals operate, especially in ubiquitous channels like social networks. They then have a better chance of mitigating the risks and recognizing attacks before they do severe damage.

As your Chapter has pointed out over the years in this blog, understanding the mechanics of data theft and the conversion process of stolen data into cash can help organizations of all types better anticipate in the exact ways criminals may exploit the system, so that organizations can put appropriate preventive measures in place. Classic examples of such criminal activity include masquerading as a trustworthy entity such as a bank or credit card company. These phishers send e-mails and instant messages that prompt users to reply with sensitive information such as usernames, passwords and credit card details, or to enter the information at a rogue web site. Other similar techniques include using text messaging (SMSishing or smishing) or voice mail (vishing) or today’s flood of offshore spam calls to lure victims into giving up sensitive information. Whaling is phishing targeted at high-worth accounts or individuals, often identified through social networking sites such as LinkedIn or Facebook. While it’s impossible to anticipate or prevent every attack, one way to stay a step ahead of these criminals is to have a thorough understanding of how such fraudsters operate their enterprises.

Although most cyber breaches reported recently in the news have struck large companies such as Equifax and Yahoo, the ACFE tells us that small and mid-sized businesses suffer a far greater number of devastating cyber incidents. These breaches involve organizations of every industry type; all that’s required for vulnerability is that they operate network servers attached to the internet. Although the number of breached records a small to medium sized business controls is in the hundreds or thousands, rather than in the millions, the cost of these breaches can be higher for the small business because it may not be able to effectively address such incidents on its own.  Many small businesses have limited or no resources committed to cybersecurity, and many don’t employ any assurance professionals apart from the small accounting firms performing their annual financial audit. For these organizations, the key questions are “Where should we focus when it comes to cybersecurity?” and “What are the minimum controls we must have to protect the sensitive information in our custody?” Fraud Examiners and forensic accountants with client attorneys assisting small businesses can assist in answering these questions by checking that their client attorney’s organizations implement a few vital cybersecurity controls.

First, regardless of their industry, small businesses must ensure their network perimeter is protected. The first step is identifying the vulnerabilities by performing an external network scan at least quarterly. A small business can either hire an outside company to perform these scans, or, if they have small in-house or contracted IT, they can license off-the-shelf software to run the scans, themselves. Moreover, small businesses need a process in place to remedy the identified critical, high, and medium vulnerabilities within three months of the scan run date, while low vulnerabilities are less of a priority. The fewer vulnerabilities the perimeter network has,
the less chance that an external hacker will breach the organization’s network.

Educating employees about their cybersecurity responsibilities is not a simple check-sheet matter. Smaller businesses not only need help in implementing an effective information security policy, they also need to ensure employees are aware of the policy and of their responsibilities. The policy and training should cover:

–Awareness of phishing attacks;
–Training on ransomware management;
–Travel tips;
–Potential threats of social engineering;
–Password protection;
–Risks of storing sensitive data in the cloud;
–Accessing corporate information from home computers and other personal devices;
–Awareness of tools the organization provides for securely sending emails or sharing large files;
–Protection of mobile devices;
–Awareness of CEO spoofing attacks.

In addition, small businesses should verify employees’ level of awareness by conducting simulation exercises. These can be in the form of a phishing exercise in which organizations themselves send fake emails to their employees to see if they will click on a web link, or a social engineering exercise in which a hired individual tries to enter the organization’s physical location and steal sensitive information such as information on computer screens left in plain sight.

In small organizations, sensitive information tends to proliferate across various platforms and folders. For example, employees’ personal information typically resides in human resources software or with a cloud service provider, but through various downloads and reports, the information can proliferate to shared drives and folders, laptops, emails, and even cloud folders like Dropbox or Google Drive. Assigned management at the organization should check that the organization has identified the sites of such proliferation to make sure it has a good handle on the state of all the organization’s sensitive information:

–Inventory all sensitive business processes and the related IT systems. Depending on the organization’s industry, this information could include customer information, pricing data, customers’ credit card information, patients’ health information, engineering data, or financial data;
–For each business process, identify an information owner who has complete authority to approve user access to that information;
–Ensure that the information owner periodically reviews access to all the information he or she owns and updates the access list.

Organizations should make it hard to get to their sensitive data by building layers or network segments. Although the network perimeter is an organization’s first line of defense, the probability of the network being penetrated is today at an all-time high. Management should check whether the organization has built a layered defense to protect its sensitive information. Once the organization has identified its sensitive information, management should work with the IT function to segment those servers that run its sensitive applications.  This segmentation will result in an additional layer of protection for these servers, typically by adding another firewall for the segment. Faced with having to penetrate another layer of defense, an intruder may decide to go elsewhere where less sensitive information is stored.

An organization’s electronic business front door also can be the entrance for fraudsters and criminals. Most of today’s malware enters through the network but proliferates through the endpoints such as laptops and desktops. At a minimum, internal small business management must ensure that all the endpoints are running anti-malware/anti-virus software. Also, they should check that this software’s firewall features are enabled. Moreover, all laptop hard drives should be encrypted.

In addition to making sure their client organizations have implemented these core controls, assurance professionals should advise small business client executives to consider other protective controls:

–Monitor the network. Network monitoring products and services can provide real-time alerts in case there is an intrusion;
–Manage service providers. Organizations should inventory all key service providers and review all contracts for appropriate security, privacy, and data breach notification language;
–Protect smart devices. Increasingly, company information is stored on mobile devices. Several off-the-shelf solutions can manage and protect the information on these devices. Small businesses should ensure they are able to wipe the sensitive information from these devices if they are lost or stolen;
–Monitor activity related to sensitive information. Management IT should log activities against their sensitive information and keep an audit log in case an incident occurs and they need to review the logs to evaluate the incident.

Combined with the controls listed above, these additional controls can help any small business reduce the probability of a data breach. But a security program is only as strong as its weakest link Through their assurance and advisory work, CFE’s and forensic accountants can proactively help identify these weaknesses and suggest ways to strengthen their smaller client organization’s anti-fraud defenses.