Cookin' With QuickBooks: Common Schemes and How to Prevent Them
Asset misappropriation involves either the theft of inventory or other assets, or more commonly, the theft of cash, which includes actual cash on hand and fraudulent disbursements.
October 03, 2019 at 12:29 PM
10 minute read
Each year the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners issues a Report to the Nations, a global study on occupational fraud and abuse (ACFE report to the nations). Occupational fraud or internal fraud is broadly defined as "… the use of one's occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the organization's resources or assets." Stated differently, it is the fraud that is committed by an entity's own officers, directors or employees. It is the largest and most prevalent fraud threat against an organization. Asset misappropriation is the most common scheme representing 89% of the cases studied, with a median loss of approximately $114,000.
Asset misappropriation involves either the theft of inventory or other assets, or more commonly, the theft of cash, which includes actual cash on hand and fraudulent disbursements. Two of the most common and costliest types of fraudulent disbursements schemes are check/payment tampering and billing schemes. Check and payment tampering includes schemes such as the diversion of legitimate vendor payments through fraudulent endorsements, the altering of payees to fraudulent individuals, and authorized maker schemes, where an employee with signature authority writes fraudulent checks for his own benefit. Billing schemes include the creation of fictitious vendors and the subsequent payments to these vendors.
The longer a fraudster's scheme goes undetected by management, the greater the related loss, which can grow exponentially. At the onset of an embezzlement, a certain level of apprehension exists, where the fraudster tests out the waters to make sure they aren't going to get caught. Once they become more confident in their scheme, the fraud begins to grow. Over a three-year period, the median loss doubles approximately every six months.
|Duration | Percent of Cases | Median Loss |
6 months or less | 27% | $30,000 |
7 – 12 months | 19% | $75,000 |
13 – 18 months | 10% | $125,000 |
19 – 24 months | 13% | $200,000 |
25 – 36 months | 11% | $400,000 |
This content has been archived.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 AllWhile Data Breaches May Lead to Years of Legal Battles, Cyberattacks Can be Prevented
4 minute readThe Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
9 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
- 2Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
- 3Squire Patton Boggs Associate Among Those Killed in String of Methanol Poisonings
- 4Womans Suit Alleging Negligence to Sex Trafficking by Hotel Tossed by Federal Judge
- 5More Big Law Firms Rush to Match Associate Bonuses, While Some Offer Potential for Even More
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