Litigation: Dealing with financial fraud
Handling fraud efficiently and appropriately can be the difference between major losses and full recovery.
October 03, 2013 at 05:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Financial fraud is one of many issues in-house counsel sometimes have to address as part of an organization's overall legal and compliance team. Handling it efficiently and appropriately can be the difference between major losses and full recovery.
According to the most recent estimates from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, a typical organization loses 5 percent of its revenues each year. Applied to organizations across the globe, that corresponds to a potential projected annual loss of over $3.5 trillion. The median loss for so-called occupational fraud–use of one's occupation for personal enrichment through misuse of the organization's assets–is approximately $140,000, with more than one-fifth of the cases having over $1 million in loss.
Detection
Detecting a financial fraud can come from a variety of sources, including an internal audit, a whistleblower, surveillance or even by accident. But by far the most common source is a tip from a fellow employee. The means of detection also correlates closely with the likely loss. Frauds detected by internal, proactive measures such as internal audits and a fraud-reporting protocol result in far smaller losses than frauds detected by external, reactive measures. And by far the least efficient means of detection, in terms of the resulting size loss amount, is when it is first discovered by law enforcement.
Types of fraud
The types of occupational fraud are almost limitless, but they can be categorized broadly into three groups: corruption, asset misappropriation and accounting fraud. Corruption involves conflicts of interest, bribes and extortion. Accounting fraud involves, through any number of means, overstating or understating company assets or revenue. Finally, asset misappropriation–the broadest of the groups–can involve simple theft, fraudulent disbursements, billing schemes, check schemes, manipulation of inventory and many other types of fraud. Those types of fraud can translate into a wide variety of state or federal crimes, including embezzlement, theft, identity theft, bribery, counterfeiting crimes, computer fraud, mail and wire fraud and money laundering among others.
Origin and prevention
Fraudsters typically have at least one of three traits and often all three: First, there is financial pressure on them or their family. Second, there is an opportunity, perceived or real, to commit their fraud. And third, they internally rationalize their conduct before they act. A combination of those factors increases the risk of fraud. In terms of workplace demographics, not surprisingly persons with more seniority and more responsibility within an organization have the greater opportunity to commit more and larger frauds. Lower-level employees or those with shorter tenures by comparison have lower loss levels associated with their fraud.
Prevention
The best–and cheapest–litigation tactic when dealing with fraud is to prevent it in the first place. The first step of prevention is an effective compliance program. While that program will be business and industry specific, it should still embrace some common themes such as establishing clear standards for conduct; requiring due diligence in hiring; describing expectations, responses, and disciplinary actions for misconduct; and providing for periodic assessment. Related to a compliance program are fraud-specific policies. As noted, these should be proactive and include items such as analytical reviews, job rotation, and audits – both routine and surprise. In addition, management must provide appropriate oversight. That means not just actual oversight, but also furthering employee education, fostering a culture of compliance, and maintaining a perception that fraud will be detected and not tolerated. Finally, good systems for reporting fraud, such as an anonymous hotline or web-based service, are key to allowing the best guards against fraud – your own employees – do so effectively and without fear of repercussion. While setting up and maintaining these various systems and steps can be challenging, they have the potential to save a business far more money and heartache from fraud in the long run.
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
© 2024 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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
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