Tag Archives: risk assessment

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.

Analytic Reinforcements

Rumbi’s post of last week on ransomware got me thinking on a long drive back from Washington about what an excellent tool the AICPA’s new Cybersecurity Risk Management Reporting Framework is, not only for CPAs but for CFEs as well as for all our client organizations. As the seemingly relentless wave of cyberattacks continues with no sign of let up, organizations are under intense pressure from key stakeholders and regulators to implement and enhance their cyber security and fraud prevention programs to protect customers, employees and all the types of valuable information in their possession.

According to research from the ACFE, the average total cost per company, per event of a data breach is $3.62 million. Initial damage estimates of a single breach, while often staggering, may not take into account less obvious and often undetectable threats such as the theft of intellectual property, espionage, destruction of data, attacks on core operations or attempts to disable critical infrastructure. These effects can knock on for years and have devastating financial, operational and brand impact ramifications.

Given the present broad regulatory pressures to tighten cyber security controls and the visibility surrounding cyberrisk, 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 our various governing bodies. One of the more prominent is a regulation 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 an entity’s risk assessment, the NYDFS law has specific requirements around data encryption and including data protection and retention, third-party information security, application security, incident response and breach notification, board reporting, and required annual re-certifications.

However, organizations continue to report to the ACFE regarding their struggle to systematically report to stakeholders on the overall effectiveness of their cyber security risk management programs. In response, the AICPA in April of last year released a new cyber security risk management reporting framework intended to help organizations expand cyberrisk reporting to a broad range of internal and external users, to include management and the board of directors. The AICPA’s new reporting framework is designed to address the need for greater stakeholder transparency by providing in-depth, easily consumable information about the state of an organization’s cyberrisk 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 basic cyber security objectives and in developing and maintaining controls within the entity’s cyber security risk management program irregardless of whether the standard 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 even an internally developed framework based on a combination of sources. The examination is voluntary, and applies to all types of entities, but should be considered by CFEs as a leading practice that provides management, boards and other key stakeholders with clear insight into the current state of an organization’s cyber security program while identifying gaps or pitfalls that leave organizations vulnerable to cyber fraud and other intrusions.

What stakeholders might benefit from a client organization’s cyber security risk management examination report? Clearly, we CFEs as we go about our routine fraud risk assessments; but such a report, most importantly, can be vital in helping an organization’s board of directors 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 cyberrisk management and fraud prevention programs and drive more effective decision making. Active involvement and oversight from the board can help ensure that an organization is paying adequate attention to cyberrisk management and displaying due diligence. The board can help shape expectations for reporting on cyberthreats while also advocating for greater transparency and assurance around the effectiveness of the program.

The cyber security risk management report in its initial and follow-up iterations can be invaluable in providing overview guidance to CFEs and forensic accountants in targeting both fraud prevention and fraud detection/investigative analytics. We know from our ACFE training that data analytics need to be fully integrated into the investigative process. Ensuring that data analytics are embedded in the detection/investigative process requires support from all levels, starting with the managing CFE. It will be an easier, more coherent process for management to support such a process if management is already supporting cyber security risk management reporting. Management will also have an easier time reinforcing the use of analytics generally, although the data analytics function supporting fraud examination will still have to market its services, team leaders will still be challenged by management, and team members will still have to be trained to effectively employ the newer analytical tools.

The presence of a robust cyber security risk management reporting process should also prove of assistance to the lead CFE in establishing goals for the implementation and use of data analytics in every investigation, and these goals should be communicated to the entire investigative team. It should be made clear to every level of the client organization that data analytics will support the investigative planning process for every detected fraud. The identification of business processes, IT systems, data sources, and potential analytic routines should be discussed and considered not only during planning, but also throughout every stage of the entire investigative engagement. Key in obtaining the buy-in of all is to include investigative team members in identifying areas or tests that the analytics group will target in support of the field work. Initially, it will be important to highlight success stories and educate managers and team leaders about what is possible. Improving on the traditional investigative approach of document review, interviewing, transaction review, etc. investigators can benefit from the implementation of data analytics to allow for more precise identification of the control deficiencies, instances of noncompliance with policies and procedures, and mis-assessment of areas of high risk that contributed to the development of the fraud in the first place. These same analytics can then be used to ensure that appropriate post-fraud management follow-up has occurred by elevating the identified deficiencies to the cyber security risk management reporting process and by implementing enhanced fraud prevention procedures in areas of higher fraud risk. This process would be especially useful in responding to and following up data breaches.

Once patterns are gathered and centralized, analytics can be employed to measure the frequency of occurrence, the bit sizes, the quantity of files executed and average time of use. The math involved allows an examiner to grasp the big picture. Individuals, including examiners, are normally overwhelmed by the sheer volume of information, but automation of pattern recognizing techniques makes big data a tractable investigative resource. The larger the sample size, the easier it is to determine patterns of normal and abnormal behavior. Network haystacks are bombarded by algorithms that can notify the CFE information archeologist about the probes of an insider threat for example.

Without analytics, enterprise-level fraud examination and risk assessment is a diminished discipline, limited in scope and effectiveness. Without an educated investigative workforce, armed with a programing language for automation and an accompanying data-mining philosophy and skill set, the control needs of management leaders at the enterprise level will go unmet; leaders will not have the data needed for fraud prevention on a large scale nor a workforce that is capable of getting them that data in the emergency following a breach or penetration.

The beauty of analytics, from a security and fraud prevention perspective, is that it allows the investigative efforts of the CFE to align with the critical functions of corporate business. It can be used to discover recurring risks, incidents and common trends that might otherwise have been missed. Establishing numerical baselines on quantified data can supplement a normal investigator’s tasks and enhance the auditor’s ability to see beneath the surface of what is presented in an examination. Good communication of analyzed data gives decision makers a better view of their systems through a holistic approach, which can aid in the creation of enterprise-level goals. Analytics and data mining always add dimension and depth to the CFE’s examination process at the enterprise level and dovetail with and are supported beautifully by the AICPA’s cyber security risk management reporting initiative.

CFEs should encourage the staffs of client analytics support functions to possess …

–understanding of the employing enterprise’s data concepts (data elements, record types, database types, and data file formats).
–understanding of logical and physical database structures.
–the ability to communicate effectively with IT and related functions to achieve efficient data acquisition and analysis.
–the ability to perform ad hoc data analysis as required to meet specific fraud examiner and fraud prevention objectives.
–the ability to design, build, and maintain well-documented, ongoing automated data analysis routines.
–the ability to provide consultative assistance to others who are involved in the application of analytics.

The Human Financial Statement

A finance professor of mine in graduate school at the University of Richmond was fond of saying, in relation to financial statement fraud, that as staff competence goes down, the risk of fraud goes up. What she meant by that was that the best operated, most flawless control ever put in place can be tested and tested and tested again and score perfectly every time. But its still no match for the employee who doesn’t know, or perhaps doesn’t even care, how to operate that control; or for the manager who doesn’t read the output correctly, or for the executive who hides part of a report and changes the numbers in the rest. That’s why CFEs and the members of any fraud risk assessment team (especially our client managers who actually own the process and its results), should always take a careful look at the human component of risk; the real-world actions, and lack thereof, taken by real-life employees in addressing the day-to-day duties of their jobs.

ACFE training emphasizes that client management must evaluate whether it has implemented anti-fraud controls that adequately address the risk that a material misstatement in the financial statements will not be prevented or detected timely and then focus on fixing or developing controls to fill any gaps. The guidance offers several specific suggestions for conducting top-down, risk-based anti-fraud focused evaluations, and many of them require the active participation of staff drawn from all over the assessed enterprise. The ACFE documentation also recommends that management consider whether a control is manual or automated, its complexity, the risk of management override, and the judgment required to operate it. Moreover, it suggests that management consider the competence of the personnel who perform the control or monitor its performance.

That’s because the real risk of financial statement misstatements lies not in a company’s processes or the controls around them, but in the people behind the processes and controls who make the organization’s control environment such a dynamic, challenging piece of the corporate puzzle. Reports and papers that analyze fraud and misstatement risk use words like “mistakes” and “improprieties.” Automated controls don’t do anything “improper.” Properly programmed record-keeping and data management processes don’t make “mistakes.” People make mistakes, and people commit improprieties. Of course, human error has always been and will always be part of the fraud examiner’s universe, and an SEC-encouraged, top-down, risk-based assessment of a company’s control environment, with a view toward targeting the control processes that pose the greatest misstatement risk, falls nicely within most CFE’s existing operational ambit. The elevated role for CFEs, whether on staff or in independent private practice, in optionally conducting fraud risk evaluations offers our profession yet another chance to show its value.

Focusing on the human element of misstatement fraud risk is one important way our client companies can make significant progress in identifying their true financial statement and other fraud exposures. It also represents an opportunity for management to identify the weak links that could ultimately result in a misstatement, as well as for CFEs to make management’s evaluation process a much simpler task. I can remember reading many articles in the trade press these last years in which commentators have opined that dramatic corporate meltdowns like Wells Fargo are still happening today, under today’s increased regulatory strictures, because the controls involved in those frauds weren’t the problem, the people were. That is certainly true. Hence, smart risk assessors are integrating the performance information they come across in their risk assessments on soft controls into management’s more quantitative, control-related evaluation data to paint a far more vivid picture of what the risks look like. Often the risks will wear actual human faces. The biggest single factor in calculating restatement risk as a result of a fraud relates to the complexity of the control(s) in question and the amount of human judgment involved. The more complex a control, the more likely it is to require complicated input data and to involve highly technical calculations that make it difficult to determine from system output alone whether something is wrong with the process itself. Having more human judgment in the mix gives rise to greater apparent risk.

A computer will do exactly what you tell it to over and over; a human may not, but that’s what makes humans special, special and risky. In the case of controls, especially fraud prevention related controls, our human uniqueness can manifest as simple afternoon sleepiness or family financial troubles that prove too distracting to put aside during the workday. So many things can result in a mistaken judgment, and simple mistakes in judgment can be extremely material to the final financial statements.

CFEs, of course, aren’t in the business of grading client employees or of even commenting to them about their performance but whether the fraud risk assessment in question is related to financial report integrity or to any other issue, CFEs in making such assessments at management’s request need to consider the experience, training, quality, and capabilities of the people performing the most critical controls.

You can have a well-designed control, but if the person in charge doesn’t know, or care, what to do, that control won’t operate. And whether such a lack of ability, or of concern, is at play is a judgment call that assessing CFEs shouldn’t be afraid to make. A negative characterization of an employee’s capability doesn’t mean that employee is a bad worker, of course. It may simply mean he or she is new to the job, or it may reveal training problems in that employee’s department. CFEs proactively involved in fraud risk assessment need to keep in mind that, in some instances, competence may be so low that it results in greater risk. Both the complexity of a control and the judgment required to operate it are important. The ability to interweave notions of good and bad judgment into the fabric of a company’s overall fraud risk comes from CFEs experience doing exactly that on fraud examinations. A critical employee’s intangibles like conscientiousness, commitment, ethics and morals, and honesty, all come into play and either contribute to a stronger fraud control environment or cause it to deteriorate. CFEs need to be able, while acting as professional risk assessors, to challenge to management the quality, integrity, and motivation of employees at all levels of the organization.

Many companies conduct fraud-specific tests as a component of the fraud prevention program, and many of the most common forms of fraud can be detected by basic controls already in place. Indeed, fraud is a common concern throughout all routine audits, as opposed to the conduct of separate fraud-only audits. It can be argued that every internal control is a fraud deterrent control. But fraud still exists.

What CFEs have to offer to the risk assessment of financial statement and other frauds is their overall proficiency in fraud detection and the reality that they are well-versed in, and cognizant of, the risk of fraud in every given business process of the company; they are, therefore, well positioned to apply their best professional judgment to the assessment of the degree of risk of financial statement misstatement that fraud represents in any given client enterprise.

Fraud Risk Assessing the Trusted Insider

A bank employee accesses her neighbor’s accounts on-line and discloses this information to another person living in the neighborhood; soon everyone seems to be talking about the neighbor’s financial situation. An employee of a mutual fund company accesses his father-in-law’s accounts without a legitimate reason or permission from the unsuspecting relative and uses the information to pressure his wife into making a bad investment from which the father-in-law, using money from the fund account, ultimately pays to extricate his daughter. Initially, out of curiosity, an employee at a local hospital accesses admission records of a high-profile athlete whom he recognized in the emergency room but then shares that information (for a price) with a tabloid newspaper reporter who prints a story.

Each of these is an actual case and each is a serious violation of various Federal privacy laws. Each of these three scenarios were not the work of an anonymous intruder lurking in cyberspace or of an identity thief who compromised a data center. Rather, this database browsing was perpetrated by a trusted insider, an employee whose daily duties required them to have access to vast databases housing financial, medical and educational information. From the comfort and anonymity of their workstations, similar employees are increasingly capable of accessing personal information for non-business reasons and, sometimes, to support the accomplishment of actual frauds. The good news is that CFE’s can help with targeted fraud risk assessments specifically tailored to assess the probability of this threat type and then to advise management on an approach to its mitigation.

The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission’s (COSO’s) 2013 update of the Internal Control Integrated Framework directs organizations to conduct a fraud risk assessment as part of their overall risk assessment. The discussion of fraud in COSO 2013 centers on Principle 8: “The organization considers the potential for fraud in assessing risks to the achievement of objectives.” Under the 1992 COSO framework, most organizations viewed fraud risk primarily in terms of satisfying the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 requirements to identify fraud controls to prevent or detect fraud risk at the transaction level. In COSO 2013, fraud risk becomes a specific component of the overall risk assessment that focuses on fraud at the entity and transaction levels. COSO now requires a strong internal control foundation that addresses fraud broadly to encompass company objectives as part of its strategy, operations, compliance, and reporting. Principle 8 describes four specific areas: fraudulent financial reporting, fraudulent nonfinancial reporting, misappropriation of assets, and illegal acts. The inclusion of non-financial reporting is a meaningful change that addresses sustainability, health and safety, employment activity and similar reports.

One useful document for performing a fraud risk assessment is Managing the Business Risk of Fraud: A Practical Guide, produced by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, and by our organization, the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, as well as by the Institute of Internal Auditors. This guide to establishing a fraud risk management program includes a sample fraud policy document, fraud prevention scorecard, and lists of fraud exposures and controls. Managing the Business Risk of Fraud advises organizations to view fraud risk assessment as part of their corporate governance effort. This commitment requires a tone at the top that embraces strong governance practices, including written policies that describe the expectations of the board and senior management regarding fraud risk. The Guide points out that as organizations continue to automate key processes and implement technology, thus allowing employees broad access to sensitive data, misuse of that data becomes increasingly difficult to detect and prevent. By combining aggressive data collection strategies with innovative technology, public and private sector organizations have enjoyed dramatic improvements in productivity and service delivery that have contributed to their bottom line. Unfortunately, while these practices have yielded major societal benefits, they have also created a major challenge for those charged with protecting confidential data.

CFE’s proactively assessing client organizations which use substantial amounts of private customer information (PCI) for fraud risk should expect to see the presence of controls related to data access surveillance. Data surveillance is the systematic monitoring of information maintained in an automated, usually in a database, environment. The kinds of controls CFE’s should look for are the presence of a privacy strategy that combines the establishment of a comprehensive policy, an awareness program that reinforces the consequences of non-business accesses, a monitoring tool that provides for ongoing analysis of database activity, an investigative function to resolve suspect accesses and a disciplinary component to hold violators accountable.

The creation of an enterprise confidentiality policy on the front end of the implementation of a data surveillance program is essential to its success. An implementing organization should establish a data access policy that clearly explains the relevant prohibitions, provides examples of prohibited activity and details the consequences of non-business accesses. This policy must apply to all employees, regardless of their title, seniority or function. The AICP/ACFE Guide recommends that all employees, beginning with the CEO, be required to sign an annual acknowledgment affirming that they have received and read the confidentiality policy and understand that violations will result in the imposition of disciplinary action. No employees are granted access to any system housing confidential data until they have first signed the acknowledgment.

In addition to issuing a policy, it is imperative that organizations formally train employees regarding its various provisions and caution them on the consequences of accessing data for non-business purposes. During the orientation process for new hires, all employees should receive specialized training on the confidentiality policy. As an added reminder, prior to logging on to any database that contains personal information, employees should receive an electronic notice stating that their activities are being monitored and that all accesses must be related to an official business purpose. Employees are not granted access into the system until they electronically acknowledge this notice.

Given that data surveillance is a process of ongoing monitoring of database activity, it is necessary for individual accesses to be captured and maintained in a format conducive to analysis. There are many commercially available software tools which can be used to monitor access to relational databases on a real-time basis. Transaction tracking technology, as one example, can dynamically generate Structured Query Language (SQL), based upon various search criteria, and provides the capability for customized analyses within each application housing confidential data. The search results are available in Microsoft Excel, PDF and table formats, and may be printed, e-mailed and archived.

Our CFE client organizations that establish a data access policy and formally notify all employees of the provisions of that policy, institute an ongoing awareness program to reinforce the policy and implement technology to track individual accesses of confidential data have taken the initial steps toward safeguarding data. These are necessary components of a data surveillance program and serve as the foundation upon which the remainder of the process may be based. That said, it is critical that organizations not rely solely on these components, as doing so will result in an unwarranted sense of security. Without an ongoing monitoring process to detect questionable database activity and a comprehensive investigative function to address unauthorized accesses, the impact of the foregoing measures will be marginal.

The final piece of a data surveillance program is the disciplinary process. The ACFE tells us that employees who willfully violate the policy prohibiting nonbusiness access of confidential information must be disciplined; the exact nature of which discipline should be determined by executive management. Without a structured disciplinary process, employees will realize that their database browsing, even if detected, will not result in any consequence and, therefore, they will not be deterred from this type of misconduct. Without an effective disciplinary component, an organization’s privacy protection program will ultimately fail.

The bottom line is that our client organizations that maintain confidential data need to develop measures to protect this asset from internal as well as from external misuse, without imposing barriers that restrict their employees’ ability to perform their duties. In today’s environment, those who are perceived as being unable to protect the sensitive data entrusted to them will inevitably experience an erosion of consumer confidence, and the accompanying consequences. Data surveillance deployed in conjunction with a clear data access policy, an ongoing employee awareness program, an innovative monitoring process, an effective investigative function and a standardized disciplinary procedure are the component controls the CFE should look for when conducting a proactive fraud risk assessment of employee access to PCI.

On Business Process Flow

During the last few years attention has increasingly turned to consideration of client critical business processes functioning as a unified whole as a focus of both risk assessment and fraud prevention efforts.  As result of this attention has come the accompanying realization that superior design of individual business processes is not only critical to the success of the overall organization but to its fraud prevention effort as well. For example, take bid preparation, a process that is usually conducted under time pressure, and requires cross-organizational coordination involving the finance, marketing and production departments. If this process is badly designed, it may slow down processing and lead to late submission of the bid or to an inadequately organized bid, reducing the chances of winning the tender, all outcomes that increase the risk of the emergence of irregularities and perhaps even to the enhanced facilitation of actual fraud. 

An additional realization has been that business processes require process based management.  As CFE’s, our client organizations are usually divided into functional units (e.g., finance, marketing). Many business processes, however, like the bid process, are cross-organizational, involving several functions within the organization.  A raw material purchasing process flows through the warehouse, logistics, purchasing and finance functions. Although each unit may function impeccably independently, the process may be impaired due to a lack of coordination among the units. To prevent the obvious fraud vulnerabilities related to this problem, the ACFE emphasizes the need to manage the business process fraud prevention effort end to end. This includes appointing a process owner; setting performance standards (e.g., time, quality, cost); and establishing (and risk assessing) the control, monitoring and measurement of all the processes at work. 

In the modern business world, change is constantly occurring; admirable as this fact is from an innovation perspective, anything that creates change, especially rapid change, can constitute opportunity for the ethically challenged.  Despite this and associated risks, to ensure its competitiveness, the organization must continuously improve and adapt its business processes. Automated processes based on information systems are usually more difficult and expensive to change than manual processes (of which there are fewer left every day). Modifications to traditional program code require time and human resources, resulting in delays and high costs. Hence, to maintain business agility, automating business processes requires a technology that supports rapid modifications and often, less management oversight and control and more vulnerability to fraud. 

Any business that is successful over the long term has most likely performed some kind of risk assessment, and had some success at managing business risks. Managers of successful entities have thought out what risks could have a significant negative impact on their ability to successfully execute the business plan, or even just cause a substantial loss of business, and have attempted to provided mitigating activities to address those risks. With the pervasiveness of fraud and, more important, their increasing dependence on cross organizational business processes, entities have had to consider a fraud risk assessment as a sizeable portion of any fraud prevention effort. Yet, many entities struggle with the issue or, if convinced of the need to conduct an assessment across business process flows, with where to begin in performing an effective one. 

The primary focus of a cross-organizational business process fraud risk assessment is to identify risks that the totality of such business processes present to the business, i.e., adverse effects related to these processes, whether taken as a whole or individually, are not in the best interests of the entity. These risks are usually associated with business elements such as the ability to deliver the service/product efficiently and effectively, the ability to comply with regulations or contractual obligations, the effectiveness of systems (especially accounting systems and financial reporting systems), and the effective management of the entity in general (to achieve goals and objectives, to successfully achieve the business model). Weak anti-fraud controls can introduce risks in any of these areas, and more. For instance, robust anti-fraud controls can enhance the entity’s ability to sell its products over the internet, or move costs (clerical functions) from within the entity (employees) to customers outside the entity (e.g., online banking and the need to ask questions about accounts).   The bottom line is that there is a need to have an effective identification and assessment of business process risks where the risks are at a degree that is more than trivial. 

Typically, fraud risk is assessed as both a probability of occurrence and a magnitude of effect, or the product of the two. The greater that product, the more significant that risk is to the entity, and the more it needs to be mitigated. Therefore, for each cross-organizational process risk, someone is asking the questions: what is the magnitude of the identified fraud risk/failure (e.g., monetary loss)? What is the likelihood of it occurring (e.g., a percentage)? One thing the CFE can do is to obtain a copy of the client’s current risk assessment document. If management does not have one, or if it is in their head, then by default, assurance over fraud risk being properly mitigated is lowered. Another good start is to obtain the client’s business model; goals, objectives and strategies; and policies and procedures documents. A review of these documents will enable the CFE to understand where cross business process fraud risks could occur.   

Another thing the CFE should do is gain a good understanding of the loss prevention function (if there is one), including its managerial and operational aspects. Then, depending on the entity, there could be an extensive list of technologies or systems that will need to be evaluated for risk in operations. From the management side, it includes the internal audit and loss prevention staffs. A measure of the competency of staff devoted to the fraud prevention effort is a key factor. Obviously, the more competent the staff, the lower the risks associated with all the elements of operations they affect, and vice versa. 

Since traditional systems are transaction based and handle each transaction and business document separately, it’s difficult to audit processes end to end.  Therefore, in such systems proper audit trails should be designed and implemented to ensure that a chronological record of all events that have occurred is maintained.  A focus on entire business processes, by contrast, is process flow based and therefore audit trails are a built-in feature.  In automated systems featuring this type of inter-process flow, all incidents and steps of multi-business processes are documented and linked to each other in the order they occurred.  

From the access control aspect of operations, an assessment should be made as to risk of unauthorized activities. For example, do access controls sufficiently limit access to systems and supported business process flows by effective authorization and authentication controls? Does the information management test new systems and applications thoroughly before deployment? Is there a sufficient staging area so that business process flow support applications can be tested not only on a stand-alone basis but also when interfaced with other applications and whole systems? If applications are not tested, this would lead the CFE to have less assurance about mitigating fraud risks facilitated by bugs and system failures.

The focus of fraud mitigation has moved, with increasing automation, away from the simple single fraud scenario to the entire flow of the interlocking business processes constituting the modern organization and their analytic footprint. 

The Internet & the Unforeseen

Liseli Pennings, last year’s speaker for our Central Virginia Chapter’s training event, ‘Investigating on the Internet’, made the comment during her presentation that on-line investigative tools are outstanding for working unforeseen fraud events.  When a potential fraud risk has been identified through routine risk assessment, what its effects would be can be discussed and hypothetically anticipated to some degree as part of the assessment.  However, Liseli pointed out, when catastrophic fraud events occur without warning, seemingly out of the blue, and no mitigation has been discussed or is even immediately possible, the results can be devastating to our clients. When these types of sudden, unforeseen fraud events occur, rapid information gathering can be critical to a successful investigative outcome and that’s where skillful use of the internet comes in.

Liseli’s comment got me to thinking about a key question.  Are these types of fraud events truly unforeseeable or are they caused by a failure to gather adequate information on the front end to anticipate them and their effects? Unanticipated fraud events and their effects typically are associated with financial factors. However, as we’ve often discussed on this blog, some of the most catastrophic events can be non-financial in nature, such as damage to reputation, which also can lead to financial losses. As part of their proactive risk assessment processes, fraud examiners can play a vital role in monitoring the client’s environment and providing valuable information to management to help identify and mitigate these types of risks.  If an organization is not prepared for these types of sudden, catastrophic fraud events, the losses can sink the organization; only look at what happened to Martha Stewart Enterprises because of her trading scandal and to Target because of the overnight revelation of the hacking of its customer accounts as well as to a host of others.

Viewed narrowly in hindsight, there seems to have been little these companies could realistically have done on the front end to mitigate the effects of such unforeseen events.  The only way to manage such events effectively is to convert them from unforeseen to foreseeable events with potential for catastrophic losses that can be mitigated through anticipation and preparation. Anticipating the potential for such events is critical, requiring information that is current, forward-looking, frequent, comprehensive, reliable, and diversified and available, to an ever-growing extent, to the CFE on the public internet.  Systematic use of the internet to broaden the scope of fraud risk assessment is a trend only now firmly taking hold.

Fraud prevention and mitigation related decision-making takes place in the present and affects the present but, more importantly, it affects the future. Historic information is valuable for some decisions but, to be effective, the information gathered for most decisions must be current and updated continuously. In this respect, CFE’s and risk managers should consider the nature of the information source and the frequency with which it is updated. For example, printed encyclopedias become dated quickly. Web and mobile sources may be considered the most current, but, as Liseli pointed out last year, this is not always the case. The very abundance of internet related resources requires of those gathering on-line information that they exercise extra care in specifying how information is verified and how often as well as when and under what circumstances it is updated.  To have comprehensive and diversified information, examiners must accept that some information they uncover won’t be completely reliable. Knowing that, they must have a methodology for evaluating the degree of reliability of each source, gathering corroborating and refuting information, and discerning the truth among the conflicting information.

When assessing the probability potential for unforeseen fraud events within the context of a client environment, CFE’s and loss prevention managers should avoid the tendency to plan and act based solely on past events and risks. Internet based scanning and assessment systems and processes ideally should be developed to anticipate the next wave of risks that might be carrying unforeseen events ever closer to the organization. It would be simple if dealing with one unforeseen fraud event eliminated all others but fraud examiners especially are aware of how often one fraud spawns another.

In casting a wider, on-line based, risk assessment net forward looking examiners might ask questions like:

–What is the next wave of technological, societal, industrial, and environmental changes that could affect my client organization, and what will be their implications for the organization?

–Have organizations that have a “bring-your-own-device” policy for cell phones, tablets, and other devices considered all the potential implications of such a policy, including privacy issues and the potential risk to proprietary information?

–What information on these devices is discoverable in legal cases?

–Are these sources included in the fraud assessment process?

–How quickly are events changing within the organization and its environment?

How do CFE’s sift through this deluge of information to glean what is relevant to the organization? What filters are available within the media in use? Which sources have features available that push the information to the user based on chosen criteria?

Some such sources are …

–Industry and trade organizations, especially including websites, magazines, newsletters, forums, and roundtables.
–Social media.
–News outlets such as print, Internet, and cable television.
–Think tanks and consultants.
–Governmental and quasi-governmental organizations.
–Personnel using cutting-edge technology.

Unforeseen financial related fraud events most often arise from a lack of information.  To be effective, information gathering must expand beyond those sources that are most familiar to risk assessment professionals and to others like CFEs involved in risk management; the more diverse the sources, the more effective the information gathering. Gathering information from only neutral sources may seem on the surface to be the most effective strategy; but this can create a severe deficit of information. Information from sources in competition with or in opposition to the client organization should be included. This will include information from sources that have a different political stance, moral compass, or divergent viewpoint. Gathering information from governmental organizations should include a wide variety of domestic and international sources. Information gatherers must evaluate the political purpose behind the information, its slant, and the reliability of the information.

Unforeseen fraud events can be devastating to an organization, not just because they are catastrophic, but because they are unexpected and initially mysterious in nature. But like all events, if they can be better understood and anticipated, their effects can be managed and mitigated so they will not be as damaging to the organization.  The use of as many information sources as possible, including those internet based,  is key to assessing their risk and potential impact.

Assessing the Unknown

Some level of uncertainty and risk must exist in any fraud examination involving financial statement fraud. For example, there may be uncertainty about the competence of management and the accounting staff, about the effectiveness of internal controls, about the quality of evidence, and so on. These uncertainties or risks are commonly classified as inherent risks, control risks, or detection risks.

Assessing the degree of risk present and identifying the areas of highest risk are critical initial steps in detecting financial statement fraud. The auditor specifically evaluates fraud risk factors when assessing the degree of risk and approaches this risk assessment with a high level of professional skepticism, setting aside any prior beliefs about management’s integrity.  Knowledge of the circumstances that can increase the likelihood of fraud, as well as other risk factors, should aid in this assessment.

SAS 99 identifies fraud risk categories that auditors and fraud examiners may evaluate in assessing the risk of fraud. The three main categories of fraud risk factors related to fraudulent financial reporting are management characteristics, industry characteristics and operating characteristics including financial stability.

Management characteristics pertain to management’s abilities, pressures, style, and attitude as they have to do with internal control and the financial reporting process. These characteristics include management’s motivation to engage in fraudulent financial reporting – for instance, compensation contingent on achieving aggressive financial targets; excessive involvement of non-financial management in the selection of accounting principles or estimates; high turnover of senior management, counsel, or board members; strained relationship between management and external auditors; and any known history of securities violations.

Industry characteristics pertain to the economic and regulatory environment in which the entity operates, ranging from stable features of that environment to changing features such as new accounting or regulatory requirements, increased competition, market saturation, or adoption by the company of more aggressive accounting policies to keep pace with the industry.

Operating characteristics and financial stability encompass items such as the nature and complexity of the entity and its transactions, the geographic areas in which it operates, the number of locations where transactions are recorded and disbursements made, the entity’s financial condition, and its profitability. Again, the fraud examiner would look for potential risk factors, such as significant pressure on the company to obtain additional capital, threats of bankruptcy, or hostile take-over.

The two primary categories of fraud risk factors related to asset misappropriation are susceptibility of assets to misappropriation and adequacy of controls.  Susceptibility of assets to misappropriation refers to the nature or type of an entity’s assets and the degree to which they are subject to theft or a fraudulent scheme.  A company with inventories or fixed assets that includes items of small size, high value, or high demand often is more susceptible, as is a company with easily convertible assets such as diamonds, computer chips or large amounts of cash receipts or cash on hand.  Cash misappropriation is also included  in this category through fraudulent schemes such as vendor fraud. Adequacy of controls refers to the ability of controls to prevent or detect misappropriations of assets, owning to the design, implementation and monitoring of such controls.

SAS 99 discusses fraud risk factors in the context of the fraud triangle which we’ve often discussed on this blog.  SAS 99 also suggests that the auditor consider the following attributes of risk:

–Type of risk that may be present – that is fraudulent financial reporting, asset misappropriation and/or corruption.

–Significance of risk – that is whether it could result in a material misstatement.

–Likelihood of the risk

–Pervasiveness of the risk – that is whether it relates to the financial statements as whole or to just particular accounts, transactions or assertions.

Finally, management selection and application of accounting principles are important factors for the examiner to consider.

Fraud, ERM & Wells Fargo

wells-fargo_2Could a fully functional Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) program have prevented or otherwise somehow mitigated the Wells Fargo fraud?

As a concept Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) is almost four decades old now and has been repeatedly battle-tested in both private and public organizations around the world as a proven approach to addressing risk in organizations of all sizes by effectively and efficiently concentrating management’s attention on the areas of highest risk to the critical business processes of the enterprise. I don’t have to tell readers of this blog that today’s fiscal realities call for continual and increased efforts to both reduce costs and still deliver optimal customer service; both objectives have a direct impact on fraud prevention because they increase the pressure on management, especially financial and marketing management to meet ever higher sales and earnings performance standards.  The ongoing debacle at Wells Fargo is a case in point of such pressures out of control at seemingly every level of the organization.

ERM was introduced as a management concept in 1974 when a Swedish state risk manager, Gustav Hamilton, identified four elements that are inextricably connected in a risk management process: assessment, control, financing and communications. He called this comprehensive view “the circle of risk” and the concept has continued to evolve in the years since. In September 2004, COSO issued, Enterprise Risk Management—Integrated Framework, a method to systematically consider and manage risk across an enterprise. COSO’s premise is that value is maximized when management sets strategy and objectives to strike a balance between growth and return goals and related risks, and efficiently and effectively deploys resources in pursuit of the entity’s objectives. COSO’s bottom line is that ERM helps an entity get to where it wants to go and avoid pitfalls and surprises like what has overtaken Wells Fargo along the way.  The ultimate goal of ERM for fraud prevention is two-fold: remediate risks (especially the risk of fraud, waste and abuse) to acceptable levels, and eliminate unnecessary controls, processes and ideally, costs. Potential benefits, such as improved service delivery, increased control and cost savings are just some of those documented in the literature. At the heart of ERM is a holistic, integrated, future-focused and process- oriented approach that facilitates the management of risk across an enterprise as opposed to looking at it only within siloed organizational entities. The ERM process focuses on “the right things” and can identify processes and procedures that do not measure up to performance, cultural standards and cost-benefit ratios defined by the entity.

Fraud risk programs align well with ERM concepts. Fraud risk programs start with establishing the risk appetite of the enterprise and are governed by policies that articulate the goals and objectives, ethical conduct standards, roles and responsibilities, strategies and tactics of implementation specific to addressing fraud risk. As with other types of ERM programs, fraud programs include deterrence strategies, preventive internal controls, routine measurement of performance and results, as well as program accountability and transparency to stakeholders. Additionally, there is special emphasis on cyber fraud, given the reliance on information technology to carry out the mission of today’s typical organization. Partnerships between organizational and program management are strong, given the linkage between the programs and their associated fraud risks. ERM also strongly supports whistleblower programs, another area of increasing attention and stakeholder priority.

News reports tell us that those Wells Fargo employees who attempted to fill the whistleblower role at many points in the employee initiated fraud were first disciplined for their efforts and then terminated.

COSO’s ERM framework is premised on four underlying principles. How might each (and all collectively) have benefited Wells Fargo beforehand to avoid the present mess?

–Every entity exists to provide stakeholder value.
Sales goals that are all but impossible to meet and which force employees to sign up customers for services they neither ordered or needed provide no value to the customer, to the employees, to Wells Fargo stockholders or to the public at large.

–All entities face uncertainty, and the challenge for management is to determine how much uncertainty to accept as it strives to grow stakeholder value. This translates to making trade-offs in establishing the level of acceptable risk to assume.
By fostering a culture of corruption among its employees by firing them for not making unrealistic sales goals, it can be argued that Wells Fargo failed to accurately assess both its level of fraud risk and its appetite for such risk.

–Uncertainty presents both risk and opportunity, with the potential to erode or enhance value. Enterprise risk management enables management to more effectively deal with uncertainty and associated risk and opportunity, enhancing the capacity to build value.
Under the COSO model Wells Fargo failed to prioritize risks that might jeopardize its corporate mission, effectiveness and efficiency. It also appears that it lacked a mechanism to take prompt action to stop the basic employee fraud scenario from persisting and spreading to more and more employees.  Only after the fact did it halt its program of unrealistic employee sales goals.

–Value is maximized when management sets strategy and objectives to strike an optimal balance between growth and return goals and related risks, and efficiently and effectively deploys resources in pursuit of the entity’s objectives.
The application of this principle features ongoing monitoring of the performance of the risk model.  Clearly, at the first signs of the fraud, Wells Fargo would have reassessed risk, set risk to the maximum and taken immediate steps to shut down the identified fraud scenario(s).

As a fraud examiner and auditor there are a number of questions I ask my corporate clients to ask themselves that are, in my opinion, critical to both identifying the risk involved with ERM generally and the business processes vulnerable to fraud specifically.

–What keeps you up at night?
–What do we not want to see on the news or in blogs?
–What are the expectations of stakeholders?
–What do we want to make sure happens and happens well?
–What problems have developed or emerged in other organizations that could be a problem in our company as well?
–What controls are now in place? What do we know about how they are working? What do we know about their cost and benefit?
–What level of control can we reasonably afford and how do we get the most bang for the buck?
–What changes have taken place in the company or external to the it that may have introduced new risks?

Would ERM have helped Wells Fargo?  I don’t know whether the bank presently has an ERM program or not but clearly the process as defined by COSO would have helped in providing a risk monitoring and immediate remediation mechanism to reassess risk in responding to the first whistleblower call alerting to the existence of the employee assisted fraud.  And there is no doubt that the forensic accounting and CFE community can play an important role in providing needed leadership and technical assistance to any organization implementing a dynamic, ERM supported, fraud response plan.  As the Wells Fargo experience and so many other instances suggest, the time has come to use the full potential of enterprise risk management as a tool to assist in the identification and rapid remediation of frauds before the costs to all stakeholders become unacceptably high.

Homecoming 2015


FallLeaves2According to the ACFE presenter at one of our recent 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.  During recent years, 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 ACFE  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 to 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. 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 ethical 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 at future 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 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 give healthy feedback on leadership’s own 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 such as independent internal audit departments or audit committees, should oversee 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 being able to demonstrate that their internal policies and practices are sound.

Senior university administrators must be able to show that they investigate all credible allegations of fraud. Independent, professional and confidential 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, codes of conduct,  and the general problem of 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 consider performing 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 CFE’s,  let’s encourage them to do it when we have the chance!

The Caveat Emptor World of Cyber Security

banner

skeleton-6Over the last five years it’s apparent that everything has changed on the internet; business activities, information technology, the communications environment as well as the threat landscape, most especially to the corporate big data of our clients (Target recently and, I’m sure, many others to come).   Retailers and hackers have become locked in a cyber arms race and retail customers are the losers.  The press and media at all levels are full of reports of government and business systems being infiltrated and thousand  of terabytes of big data stolen.  Consumer’s computers,  wireless modems and, increasingly cell phones are being compromised and it seems  the fabric of cyberspace is under attack, with even nation states demonstrating their ability to take control of the internet seemingly at will.

All of this is as a result of a number of fundamental shifts in technology and those shifts require an equally fundamental shift in attitudes toward security for concerned players at all levels.  This is because information technology has evolved for our clients from purely a means of system automation into an essential characteristic of society itself, an entity called cyberspace.  Seemingly before our eyes, the kind of quality, reliability and availability that has been traditionally associated only with power and water utilities is now absolutely essential for the protection and continued operation of the technology used to deliver all types of government and business services to its ever expanding user public.  The critical information service flows of cyberspace have become as essential to the continuity of our daily survival as water and power grid services.

Cloud computing, coupled with the internal big data on customers of retail and financial services companies enables individuals  and organizations to access application services and data from anywhere via a web interface; this is essentially an information service model of delivery with attitude.  I used to produce this blog by running Microsoft Front Page on a PC; now I use WordPress in the cloud…the economies possible through use of cloud rather than internal IT solutions will inevitably see the majority of businesses (and governments) running in the cloud.  This model substantially changes the ways in which organizations can affect and will have to securely manage both their IT functions and the security of their systems.

As fraud examiners conducting fraud risk assessments and investigating cyber based incidents, we need to be aware that the security standards employed today by the bulk of our clients (and currently arrayed to protect their constantly growing hoards of customer and financial data) were developed in a world in which computers were subject to the frauds and other criminal activities perpetrated primarily by individuals inside, and to a lesser extent, outside their organizations.  That era is now long past.  What has changed is the rapid increase in organized cyber crime through the emergence of robot networks (bot-nets) enabling network penetrations and related criminal activity to be conducted on an unprecedented global scale.  These bot-networks can be used as force multipliers to deliver massive denial of service attacks on targeted businesses, essentially cutting the victims off from the global internet.

Cyber crime is now arguably a bigger issue than illegal drugs given its potential to directly affect the lives (and livelihoods) of every customer of every business and of every citizen of every country.  Yet the growing problem in cyberspace doesn’t come from the threats alone but from the combination of threats and vulnerabilities.  As fraud professionals in the front line we need to make our clients aware that their vulnerabilities are neither more nor less than byproducts of the currently low or none existent level of quality in the personnel and products they use to provide themselves with cyber security.  The establishment and official recognition of cyber security as a profession is long overdue and recent thefts of big data from a host of companies prove it.  We are rapidly leaving the era when it was cheaper for individual companies (and governments) to pay the cost of occasional cyber breaches than to invest in adequate security (the credit card industry and the European smart card chip is a case in point).  It’s no longer acceptable for professionals, trades people, products and services that are critical to the continuing success of the vital cyber enterprise to operate on a basis of caveat emptor.

In order to assist security professionals in the fight against the ever rising tide of cyber crime, fraud examiners and other control assurance professionals need to understand for each of our client types:

–their business, the related strategic cyber objectives, the market, the stakeholders and what information (especially big data related to customers and products) the enterprise uses and shares;

–the business information flows, relationships and dependencies;

–the value of the business information in financial, strategic and operational terms;

–the impact of failure in information management-corruption, loss or disclosure-and failure in the service provided;

–what it takes to recover to a manageable position in the event of failure or cyber fraud and to understand where such a recovery is not possible (definition of loss boundary conditions).

With this type information in hand, the fraud examiner can hope to realistically assist the security professional in the definition of risk profiles and related fraud scenarios with the objective of moving toward the creation of appropriate cyber security threat counter measures; the effort is guaranteed to add value.

Please make plans to join us on April 16-17th, 2014 for the Central Virginia Chapter’s seminar on the Topic of Introduction to Fraud Examination for 16 CPE ($200.00 for early Registration)! For details see our Prior Post entitled, “Save the Date”!