Figure 1: Occupational Frauds by Category—Frequency
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
FinancialStatement Fraud
Corruption
AssetMisappropriation
TY
PE
OF
FR
AU
D
P E R C E N T O F C A S E S
89.5%
26.7%
12.8%
Figure 2: Occupational Frauds by Category—Median Loss
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
$0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000
Financial Statement Fraud
Corruption
Asset Misappropriation
TY
PE
OF
FR
AU
D
M E D I A N L O S S
$173,000
$250,000
$500,000
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Register Disbursements
Payroll
Cash Larceny
Skimming
Check Tampering
Cash on Hand
Financial Statement Fraud
Non-Cash
Expense Reimbursements
Corruption
Billing
SC
HE
ME
TY
PE
P E R C E N T O F C A S E S
29.1%
26.7%
17.4%
16.3%
12.8%
11.6%
11.6%
11.6%
10.5%
10.5%
5.8%
Figure 3: Frequency of Fraud Schemes
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Confession
IT Controls
Notified by Law Enforcement
External Audit
Document Examination
Account Reconciliation
By Accident
Other
Internal Audit
Management Review
Tip
DE
TE
CT
ION
ME
TH
OD
P E R C E N T O F C A S E S
32.6%
20.9%
9.3%
7.0%
3.5%
3.5%
2.3%
2.3%
1.2%
1.2%
16.3%
Figure 4: Initial Detection of Occupational Frauds
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Document Examination
Other
By Accident
Management Review
Internal Audit
Tip
DE
TE
CT
ION
ME
TH
OD
P E R C E N T O F C A S E S
50.0%
14.3%
14.3%
7.1%
7.1%
4.8%
13.2%
21.1%
31.6%
10.5%
5.3%
Organizations With Hotlines
Organizations Without Hotlines2.6%
Figure 5: Impact of Hotlines on the Top Six Detection Methods
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
Figure 6: Type of Victim Organization—Frequency and Median Loss
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
Other*Not-for-Profit*Public CompanyGovernmentPrivate Company0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
T Y P E O F V I C T I M O R G A N I Z AT I O N
ME
DIA
N L
OS
SP
ER
CE
NT
OF
CA
SE
S
Percent of CasesMedian Loss
$300,000
$148,000
$125,000
37.2%
25.6%24.4%
7.0%5.8%
*Not-for-Profit and Other categories had insufficient responses for median loss calculation.
$0
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
10,000+1,000–9,999100–999<100
N U M B E R O F E M P L O Y E E S
ME
DIA
N L
OS
SP
ER
CE
NT
OF
CA
SE
S
Percent of CasesMedian Loss
$300,000
$180,000
$86,000
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
30.1%
15.7%
28.9%
25.3%
$110,000
Figure 7: Size of Victim Organization—Frequency and Median Loss
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%Services (Professional)
Utilities
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, and Hunting
Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation
Other
Real Estate
Services (Other)
Technology
Telecommunications
Wholesale Trade
Mining
Oil and Gas
Education
Transportation and Warehousing
Insurance
Manufacturing
Retail
Construction
Health Care
Government and Public Administration
Banking and Financial Services
IND
US
TR
Y
P E R C E N T O F C A S E S
15.1%
14.0%
9.3%
7.0%
5.8%
5.8%
5.8%
4.7%
4.7%
3.5%
3.5%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
2.3%
1.2%
1.2%
Figure 8: Industry of Victim Organization
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%Rewards for Whistleblowers
Job Rotation/Mandatory Vacation
Surprise Audits
Fraud Training for Managers/Executives
Formal Fraud Risk Assessments
Proactive Data Monitoring/Analysis
Fraud Training for Employees
Dedicated Fraud Department, Function, or Team
Anti-Fraud Policy
Hotline
Independent Audit Committee
Management Review
Internal Audit Department
External Audit of ICOFR
Employee Support Programs
Code of Conduct
Management Certification of F/S
External Audit of F/S
AN
TI-
FR
AU
D C
ON
TR
OL
P E R C E N T O F C A S E S
79.7%
79.2%
83.3%
77.0%
65.8%
64.7%
61.5%
59.2%
52.5%
39.0%
38.6%
38.0%
37.2%
35.5%
35.4%
31.1%
16.2%
8.0%
Figure 9: Frequency of Anti-Fraud Controls
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
Key:
External Audit of F/S = Independent External Audits of the Organization’s Financial Statements
Management Certification of F/S = Management Certification of the Organization’s Financial Statements
External Audit of ICOFR = Independent External Audits of the Organization’s Internal Controls Over Financial Reporting
Control Percent of Cases Control in Place Control Not in Place Percent Reduction
Job Rotation/Mandatory Vacation 16.2% $16,000 $250,000 93.6%
External Audit of Financial Statements 83.3% $135,000 $750,000 82.0%
Internal Audit Department 64.7% $112,000 $396,000 71.7%
Surprise Audits 31.1% $80,000 $250,000 68.0%
Formal Fraud Risk Assessments 35.5% $80,000 $250,000 68.0%
Employee Support Programs 77.0% $125,000 $350,000 64.3%
Anti-Fraud Policy 39.0% $98,000 $250,000 60.8%
Hotline 52.5% $111,000 $250,000 55.6%
External Audit of Internal Controls over Financial Reporting 65.8% $111,000 $250,000 55.6%
Dedicated Fraud Department, Function, or Team 38.6% $118,000 $250,000 52.8%
Independent Audit Committee 59.2% $125,000 $250,000 50.0%
Management Review 61.5% $138,000 $250,000 44.8%
Proactive Data Monitoring/Analysis 37.2% $112,000 $200,000 44.0%
Fraud Training for Employees 38.0% $118,000 $200,000 41.0%
Fraud Training for Managers/Executives 35.4% $128,000 $175,000 26.9%
Code of Conduct 79.2% $150,000 $188,000 20.2%
Management Certification of Financial Statements 79.7% $150,000 $175,000 14.3%
*Rewards for Whistleblowers was omitted from this table due to insufficient responses for median loss calculation.
Figure 10: Median Loss Based on Presence of Anti-Fraud Controls*
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
Control Percent of Cases Control in Place Control Not in Place Percent Reduction
Employee Support Programs 77.0% 13 months 42 months 69.0%
Dedicated Fraud Department, Function, or Team 38.6% 12 months 36 months 66.7%
Internal Audit Department 64.7% 12 months 36 months 66.7%
Independent Audit Committee 59.2% 13 months 36 months 63.9%
External Audit of Internal Controls over Financial Reporting 65.8% 12 months 33 months 63.6%
Hotline 52.5% 12 months 30 months 60.0%
Management Review 61.5% 12 months 24 months 50.0%
Surprise Audits 31.1% 12 months 24 months 50.0%
Formal Fraud Risk Assessments 35.5% 12 months 24 months 50.0%
Fraud Training for Managers/Executives 35.4% 12 months 24 months 50.0%
Anti-Fraud Policy 39.0% 12 months 24 months 50.0%
Fraud Training for Employees 38.0% 12 months 24 months 50.0%
Job Rotation/Mandatory Vacation 16.2% 15 months 24 months 37.5%
Proactive Data Monitoring/Analysis 37.2% 15 months 24 months 37.5%
Management Certification of Financial Statements 79.7% 18 months 24 months 25.0%
Code of Conduct 79.2% 24 months 24 months 0.0%
External Audit of Financial Statements 83.3% 24 months 24 months 0.0%
*Rewards for Whistleblowers was omitted from this table due to insufficient responses for median duration calculation.
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
Figure 11: Median Duration of Fraud Based on Presence of Anti-Fraud Controls*
6.6% 2.9%Lack of Management Review
17.9%Override of Existing Internal Controls25.0%
Lack of Internal Controls 31.0% Poor Tone at the Top
13.1%
Lack of Competent Personnel in Oversight Roles6.0%
Other3.6%
Lack of Independent Checks/Audits3.6%
Figure 12: Primary Internal Control Weakness Observed by CFE
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
Figure 13: Position of Perpetrator—Frequency and Median Loss
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
$0
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
Other*Owner/ExecutiveManagerEmployee
ME
DIA
N L
OS
SP
ER
CE
NT
OF
CA
SE
S
Percent of CasesMedian Loss
$110,000
$175,000
$835,000
30.1%
15.7%
45.1%
30.5%
19.5%
4.9%
P O S I T I O N O F P E R P E T R AT O R
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
*Other category had insufficient responses for median loss calculation.
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Human Resources
Information Technology
Internal Audit
Manufacturing and Production
Marketing/Public Relations
Other
Finance
Legal
Warehousing/Inventory
Purchasing
Customer Service
Executive/Upper Management
Accounting
Operations
Sales
DE
PA
RT
ME
NT
OF
PE
RP
ET
RA
TO
R
P E R C E N T O F C A S E S
14.6%
11.0%
11.0%
4.9%
3.7%
3.7%
3.7%
2.4%
2.4%
2.4%
1.2%
1.2%
1.2%
20.7%
15.9%
Figure 14: Department of Perpetrator—Frequency
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
Male 64.6%
Female35.4%
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
Figure 15: Gender of Perpetrator—Frequency
$0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000
Female
Male
GE
ND
ER
OF
PE
RP
ET
RA
TO
R
M E D I A N L O S S
$85,000
$180,000
Figure 16: Gender of Perpetrator—Median Loss
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
Never Charged or Convicted89.8%
Had Prior Convictions4.1%
Charged but Not Convicted4.1%
Other4.1%
Figure 17: Criminal Background of Perpetrator
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
6.6% 2.9%
Never Punished or Terminated78.9%
Previously Punished7.9%
Previously Terminated7.9%
Other10.5%
Figure 18: Employment Background of Perpetrator
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Civil Suit
Referral to Law Enforcement
LE
GA
L A
CT
ION
TA
KE
N
P E R C E N T O F C A S E S
65.7%
No
Yes
58.7% 41.3%
34.3%
Figure 19: Cases Resulting in Referral to Law Enforcement or Civil Suit
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
100%
76–99%
51–75%
26–50%
1–25%
No Recovery
PE
RC
EN
T O
F L
OS
S R
EC
OV
ER
ED
P E R C E N T O F C A S E S
60.3%
7.9%
9.5%
7.9%
6.3%
7.9%
Figure 20: Recovery of Victim Organization’s Losses
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
Permitted or RequiredResignation
Probation or Suspension
Perpetrator Was No LongerWith Organization
Settlement Agreement
No Punishment
Other
Termination
AC
TIO
N T
AK
EN
AG
AIN
ST
PE
RP
ET
RA
TO
R
P E R C E N T O F C A S E S
3.7%
4.9%
6.2%
7.4%
8.6%
18.5%
70.4%
Figure 21: Action Taken Against Perpetrator
© 2016 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. All rights reserved.
Top Related