Who is the typical fraudster?
 |
20 Iunie 2011 |
 |
KPMG ROMÂNIA S.R.L. |
Adresa
DN 1 Bucureşti Ploieşti, Nr. 69-71
013685 Bucureşti, Sector 1
Telefon
+40-21-201.22.22
Fax
+40-21-201.22.11
Website
www.kpmg.md
www.kpmg.ro
Introduction
Who is the typical fraudster? Are there any defining features, traits, or behaviors that could help you to identify those individuals within your organization more likely to perpetrate fraud?
If only it were that simple
KPMG’s 2011 global analysis of fraud trends can help you to draw inferences. We have narrowed down the profile of a typical fraudster, based on scrutiny of actual instances of fraud, to help organizations like yours become more alert and responsive to fraud.
KPMG International’s 2011 study follows our 2007 analysis of fraudulent behaviors within the Europe, Middle East, and Africa region (EMA). Our last report proved so popular that we havenow extended our analysis worldwide. We have sought to identify patterns among individuals who have committed acts of fraudand contrasted the value and duration as well as many other characteristics.
Our research is based on 348 actual fraud investigations conducted by KPMG member firms in 69 countries. While it includes somehigh-profile reported cases of fraud, for the most part, these investigations were not publicized. The sample is very broad in the size and scope of fraud committed and is far-reaching in terms ofthe sectors and geographies covered.
Here is what we found out about the typical fraudster:
Male
- 36 to 45 years old
- Commits fraud against his own employer
- Works in the finance function or in a finance-related role
- Holds a senior management position
- Employed by the company for more than 10 years
- Works in collusion with another perpetrator
As in 2007, unsurprisingly, the overriding motivation for fraudis personal greed, followed by pressures on individuals toreach tough profi t and budget targets. The survey highlights,more importantly, how weakening control structures make theopportunity to commit fraud easier.
Organizations should takesome of the blame. For them, it is time to consider how they contribute to fraud when failing to detect or respond to lapsesor gaps in controls, or by setting overly onerous targets. Read on to find out more about the potential fraudsters. Discoverwhich “red flags” to look out for and how to implement more effective measures to manage the prevention and detectionof fraud and your response to it. Phillip D. OstwaltGlobal and Americas Investigations Network LeaderRichard PowellEMA Investigations Network LeaderMark LeishmanASPAC Investigations Network Leader
Methodology
KPMG gathered data and details from fraud investigations conducted by our firms’ forensic specialists in EMA, the Americas, and Asia Pacific from January 2008 to December 2010. In all, 348 cases from 69 countries were analyzed.
White collar crimes
From the thousands of fraud investigations conducted by KPMG Forensic SM, data has been collated relating to a sample comprising“white collar” crimes with a clear perpetrator. The frauds included in this analysis comprise material misstatement of financial results, theft of cash and/or other assets, abuse of expenses, and a range of other fraudulent acts. Excluded from the sample are frauds considered to be of nomaterial value, acts of misconduct or those where fraud could not be substantiated during the investigation, as well as cases lacking sufficient detail.
The analysis identifies:
- Fraudster profiles and details of more common types of fraud
- Conditions that tend to enable fraud
Typical follow-up actions by organizations impacted by fraud The findings in this report are contrasted, where possible, withour 2007 analysis to highlight shifts in patterns and to providesome perspective on emerging trends and behaviors.
This report does not reveal the names of parties involved, in order to protect confidentiality. Many of the cases included here did not reach the public domain; others reported only headline details ofthe fraud. This is fairly typical in our experience. All monetary values are expressed in U.S. dollars.
What our analysis revealed
Typically, a fraudster is perceived as someone who is greedy and deceitful by nature. However, as this analysis reveals, many fraudsters work within entities for severalyears without committing any fraud, before an influencing factor–financial worries, job dissatisfaction, aggressive targets, or simply an opportunity to commit fraud–tips thebalance. Here’s what we found.
Individual profile
Age
Our survey finds that the typical fraudster is between the ages of 36 and 45. This group rose from 39 percent of cases in 2007 to 41 percent in 2011. This is closely followed by a group accounting for 35 percent of fraudsters who were between 46 and 55 years old.
Gender
While men were found to be more likely perpetrators of detected fraud (85 percent in 2007 and 87 percent in the 2011 analysis),women in the Americas (22 percent) and Asia Pacific (23 percent) are almost three times more likely to be involved in fraud than in EMA (8 percent). This might be due, perhaps, to fewer women in senior positions in “old Europe” and Africa compared with other regions of the world.The survey’s finding that men commit more fraud than women seems a reflection on the gender make-up of companies generally.The gender gap in fraud perpetration may reflect women’s under-representation in senior management positions and, as a consequence, fewer opportunities to commit fraud.
