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
© 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 All‘Extremely Disturbing’: AI Firms Face Class Action by ‘Taskers’ Exposed to Traumatic Content
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Is It Time for Large UK Law Firms to Begin Taking Private Equity Investment?
- 2Federal Judge Pauses Trump Funding Freeze as Democratic AGs Launch Defensive Measure
- 3Class Action Litigator Tapped to Lead Shook, Hardy & Bacon's Houston Office
- 4Arizona Supreme Court Presses Pause on KPMG's Bid to Deliver Legal Services
- 5Bill Would Consolidate Antitrust Enforcement Under DOJ
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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