How big is big? Measuring the metrics of your anti-fraud program
Building a case for establishing and maintaining a program to combat fraud means justifying the expenditure with measureable results.
April 15, 2013 at 04:00 AM
9 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
This is the fifth article in a series on discount and warranty fraud. Read parts one, two, three and four.
Over the past two months, this series of articles has explained why your company should be concerned about discount fraud and warranty fraud. The bottom line is that your company cannot afford to overlook these growing threats. Discount fraud schemes involve customers asking for deep discounts on your products based upon an articulated need and turning around and selling those products in the marketplace. Similarly, warranty fraud schemes are aimed at using your company's warranty process to steal products from you.
What can you do about this fraud? Proactive companies are putting programs in place to specifically detect and prevent these frauds from occurring. But you need to get, and keep, executive support for the program. Building a case for establishing and maintaining a program to combat fraud means justifying the expenditure with measureable results.
Maintaining executive buy-in
For many companies, showing the results of their anti-fraud program is vital to maintaining the commitment and support of company executives. So how can your company measure the extent of the problem and demonstrate all the benefits that flow from having a robust program?
It is not a simple issue of showing “dollars in the door.” Sometimes the harm resulting from these crimes is more complicated and more virulent than lost dollars. In fact, if you are focusing only on dollars collected, then you are missing out on identifying many of the benefits of these anti-fraud programs.
Measurable metrics
Companies tackling these abuses head-on use a number of established methods to measure the impact of these crimes. Here are some of the benchmarks we recommend using:
- Dollars in the door. Don't get us wrong…court-ordered money sentences and judgments that actually get paid are certainly one of the best indications of the significance of these crimes and your program's success. When the sums are large and the criminals have the money to pay them, these collections can fund the costs of your program.
- Deterrence message. Perpetrators of these crimes who are caught and prosecuted are serving significant prison sentences and owe substantial amounts in restitution to their victims. When word gets out that your company is actively monitoring its discount sales and warranty return programs, and that people are serving sizable sentences for these crimes, this sends a strong message to potential fraudsters that you are not an easy target. Once your company develops a reputation for taking these crimes seriously, many perpetrators will move on to other victims.
- Reduction of fraudulent activity post-government intervention. Although it can take a long time for the government to investigate a fraud scheme that you refer to them, there are mileposts along the way that are significant. If the government executes a search warrant to collect more evidence or confronts the target to seek a plea, the perpetrators of these frauds will realize that their conduct is being watched and examined. Typically, at that point, all further fraudulent activity by that target ceases. So, although an ultimate conviction may be months or years away, the search warrant or confrontation essentially ends that particular fraud enterprise.
- Capturing the benefits to the partner community. The products that fraudsters procure through discount and warranty fraud schemes likely end up with brokers. The brokers use the free or heavily discounted products to compete, unfairly, against your honest channel partners. You want to know what issues your partners are being vocal about and what they are saying about your company's efforts to stop these frauds from occurring. When the “buzz” is about how supportive your company has been, this is a measurable success of your program.
- New intelligence gathered. In the course of both criminal and civil cases against the perpetrators of these crimes, as the victim, you and your attorney will often have the opportunity to sit down with the criminal to learn what they know (this occurs in the criminal process prior to sentencing, and in the civil process through a deposition). These discussions are likely to net intelligence about other fraudsters and their involvement with brokers who are selling the stolen products.
As you build a case for establishing a program to address discount and warranty fraud, we recommend looking at all the metrics involved. Outside of recouping some or all of the losses your company has suffered, there are other significant and measurable benefits that flow from having a tough anti-fraud program.
This is the fifth article in a series on discount and warranty fraud. Read parts one, two, three and four.
Over the past two months, this series of articles has explained why your company should be concerned about discount fraud and warranty fraud. The bottom line is that your company cannot afford to overlook these growing threats. Discount fraud schemes involve customers asking for deep discounts on your products based upon an articulated need and turning around and selling those products in the marketplace. Similarly, warranty fraud schemes are aimed at using your company's warranty process to steal products from you.
What can you do about this fraud? Proactive companies are putting programs in place to specifically detect and prevent these frauds from occurring. But you need to get, and keep, executive support for the program. Building a case for establishing and maintaining a program to combat fraud means justifying the expenditure with measureable results.
Maintaining executive buy-in
For many companies, showing the results of their anti-fraud program is vital to maintaining the commitment and support of company executives. So how can your company measure the extent of the problem and demonstrate all the benefits that flow from having a robust program?
It is not a simple issue of showing “dollars in the door.” Sometimes the harm resulting from these crimes is more complicated and more virulent than lost dollars. In fact, if you are focusing only on dollars collected, then you are missing out on identifying many of the benefits of these anti-fraud programs.
Measurable metrics
Companies tackling these abuses head-on use a number of established methods to measure the impact of these crimes. Here are some of the benchmarks we recommend using:
- Dollars in the door. Don't get us wrong…court-ordered money sentences and judgments that actually get paid are certainly one of the best indications of the significance of these crimes and your program's success. When the sums are large and the criminals have the money to pay them, these collections can fund the costs of your program.
- Deterrence message. Perpetrators of these crimes who are caught and prosecuted are serving significant prison sentences and owe substantial amounts in restitution to their victims. When word gets out that your company is actively monitoring its discount sales and warranty return programs, and that people are serving sizable sentences for these crimes, this sends a strong message to potential fraudsters that you are not an easy target. Once your company develops a reputation for taking these crimes seriously, many perpetrators will move on to other victims.
- Reduction of fraudulent activity post-government intervention. Although it can take a long time for the government to investigate a fraud scheme that you refer to them, there are mileposts along the way that are significant. If the government executes a search warrant to collect more evidence or confronts the target to seek a plea, the perpetrators of these frauds will realize that their conduct is being watched and examined. Typically, at that point, all further fraudulent activity by that target ceases. So, although an ultimate conviction may be months or years away, the search warrant or confrontation essentially ends that particular fraud enterprise.
- Capturing the benefits to the partner community. The products that fraudsters procure through discount and warranty fraud schemes likely end up with brokers. The brokers use the free or heavily discounted products to compete, unfairly, against your honest channel partners. You want to know what issues your partners are being vocal about and what they are saying about your company's efforts to stop these frauds from occurring. When the “buzz” is about how supportive your company has been, this is a measurable success of your program.
- New intelligence gathered. In the course of both criminal and civil cases against the perpetrators of these crimes, as the victim, you and your attorney will often have the opportunity to sit down with the criminal to learn what they know (this occurs in the criminal process prior to sentencing, and in the civil process through a deposition). These discussions are likely to net intelligence about other fraudsters and their involvement with brokers who are selling the stolen products.
As you build a case for establishing a program to address discount and warranty fraud, we recommend looking at all the metrics involved. Outside of recouping some or all of the losses your company has suffered, there are other significant and measurable benefits that flow from having a tough anti-fraud program.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
GC Conference Takeaways: Picking AI Vendors 'a Bit of a Crap Shoot,' Beware of Internal Investigation 'Scope Creep'
8 minute readWhy ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Trending Stories
- 1How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2024 Bar Exam
- 2'Discordant Dots': Why Phila. Zantac Judge Rejected Bid for His Recusal
- 3Here's What Corporate Litigators Expect Del. Courts to Address in 2025
- 4U.S. Supreme Court Has No Jurisdiction Over Trump's New York Criminal Case: Prosecutors
- 5The Law Firm Disrupted: With KPMG's Proposed Entry, Arizona's Liberalized Legal Market is Getting Interesting
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250