Corporate Spoofing Victims Beware: The SEC Is Watching
Cyber-threats are real and constantly evolving. The SEC's investigative report reminds companies that the securities laws require them to pay attention and proactively address such threats by implementing an effective system of internal accounting controls coupled with effective employee training.
October 23, 2018 at 02:35 PM
7 minute read
On Oct. 16, 2018, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued an investigative report highlighting issues for public companies related to spoofing cyber-frauds. The SEC's report focuses on “business email compromises” in which a person successfully masquerading as either a corporate executive or a vendor directs a corporate employee to transfer funds to an account controlled by the perpetrators of the scheme.
The SEC's report urges issuers to consider whether their current internal accounting controls are sufficient to provide “reasonable assurances” that corporate assets are safeguarded from cyber-related threats. While the SEC did not bring enforcement actions against any of the companies it investigated, future companies victimized by such schemes may not be so fortunate unless they can show that they've acted to implement internal accounting controls that minimize the risk of falling prey to these frauds.
The report is the latest in a series of SEC actions during 2018 designed to highlight the importance of addressing cybersecurity risks. The agency's warnings began with its February 2018 interpretive release which updated the agency's October 2011 guidance on disclosure obligations for cybersecurity risks and incidents and which highlighted the importance of cybersecurity policies related to disclosure controls and procedures, insider trading and selective disclosures. Next, in April 2018, the agency sued and imposed a $35 million penalty on an issuer whom the SEC claimed failed to disclose adequately and timely a “massive” data breach. Most recently, in September 2018, the SEC brought its first enforcement action against a firm for inadequate cybersecurity policies and procedures which, according to the SEC, resulted in security breaches and the disclosure of confidential information.
The report reminds those regulated by the SEC that cybersecurity risks implicate internal accounting controls as well as the policies and procedures referenced in the February guidance.
The Investigation
The SEC investigated the internal accounting controls of nine companies in a wide range of industries. Each of the companies was victimized by spoofed or compromised emails from individuals purporting to be company executives or vendors. Losses ranged from at least $1 million to more than $30 million.
There were two types of schemes: emails from impersonated executives and emails from impersonated vendors. The first scheme, according to the SEC, presented red flags that were missed; employee failures impacted the success of both schemes.
Impersonated executives: In this common scheme, an employee, often mid-level, receives an email purportedly sent by a corporate executive. The email appears legitimate and directs the employee to take various steps ultimately resulting in the transfer of corporate funds to bank accounts controlled by the perpetrator of the fraud. Common elements of this type of scheme included:
• A purported time-sensitive transaction, generally foreign
• A claimed need for secrecy
• Claims of government oversight
• Lack of transaction details
Impersonated vendors: This scheme typically involved infiltration of the email accounts of the issuers' foreign vendors. Using the infiltrated accounts, the perpetrators sent illegitimate payment requests and revised payment details. Generally, the requests were sent to issuer procurement personnel who were involved with the actual purchase orders and invoices. The procurement employees then provided the payment requests to the finance department. The issuers then sent payment to the accounts controlled by the impersonator.
Red Flags and Employee Mistakes
The investigative report highlighted certain red flags that were missed as well as employee mistakes. These errors enabled the perpetrators to succeed in their theft of corporate assets.
As issuers consider the SEC's report, they should assess whether their internal accounting controls currently address the following risks and if not what steps the company can take to minimize the following risks:
Failure to raise questions about emails containing red flags such as:
• Claimed time-sensitivity for an unspecified transaction
• Claimed need for secrecy
• Assertion that the funds were needed for foreign transactions with minimal details regarding those transactions
• Direction to send funds to offshore accounts and
• Spelling and grammatical errors.
Employee mistakes such as:
• Failure to follow dual-authorization wire payment requirements
• Misinterpretation of the company's payment authorization payment matrix and
• Failure to ask questions about transactions that were not within the employee's typical area of responsibility
The Stakes for Public Companies
Per the SEC's investigative report, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 requires public companies to establish and maintain internal accounting controls that safeguard corporate (and ultimately investor) assets from cyber-related frauds. The SEC is focusing on specific requirements that issuers devise and maintain a system of internal accounting controls sufficient to provide reasonable assurances that (1) transactions are executed in accordance with general or specific management authorization and (2) access to assets is permitted only in accordance with managements general or specific authorization.
The SEC's report pointed out that the issuers victimized by these schemes came from a wide range of industries, and the report used that point to emphasize that every type of business is a potential target. In other words, every issuer is subject to these risks and should evaluate its internal accounting controls appropriately and make enhancements if necessary. Failure to do raises the specter of an enforcement action and possible monetary sanctions for the next public company victimized by these all-too-common schemes.
Action Steps
Corporations should consider whether to enhance their internal accounting controls as part of a broader cybersecurity program. The SEC's report describes at a high level some of the steps taken by the companies after falling victim to the spoofing frauds as well as some of situations where employees did not follow controls. Companies should assess whether policy and procedure enhancements are needed in at least the following areas:
• payment authorization
• verification for vendor information changes
• account reconciliation processes and
• payment notification processes.
Most importantly, and as stressed by the SEC's report, companies should increase training related to cyber-fraud and should conduct that training at all levels of the company. To reduce risk, training should be periodic and should include information regarding the types of cyber-threats employees may encounter, typical red flags and education regarding the company's policies and procedures related to payments.
Companies should also consider providing a method by which employees can ask questions regarding payment requests that include red flags. While an employee may not feel comfortable asking a higher-level employee whether his or her email is legitimate, establishing a mechanism that allows an employee to seek neutral guidance about a suspicious email will increase the likelihood that companies identify cyber-frauds earlier.
Finally, while the report is silent on whether any of the investigated companies disclosed their cybersecurity issues, companies should bear in mind the SEC's February 2018 guidance and assess disclosure obligations as well as related disclosure controls and procedures.
Conclusion
Cyber-threats are real and constantly evolving. The SEC's investigative report reminds companies that the securities laws require them to pay attention and proactively address such threats by implementing an effective system of internal accounting controls coupled with effective employee training.
Deborah R. Meshulam is a partner at DLA Piper.
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 AllThe Unraveling of Sean Combs: How Legislation from the #MeToo Movement Brought Diddy Down
When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
8 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
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