Fraud Triangle And Red Flags

Throughout its more than hundred year history, the Federal Bureau of Investigations has been a very important agency to the United States. As a threat-based and intelligence-driven national security organization, the mission of the FBI is to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, to enforce the criminal laws of the United States, and to provide leadership to federal, state, and international agencies (“A Brief History of the FBI”). The Bureau’s success has always depended on its agility, its willingness to adapt, and the ongoing dedication of its personnel. But in the years since

1. The three aspects of fraud - Perceived pressure, Rationalization, and Opportunity were present in the CIT case as follows:

Cases of fraud have been increasing over the years, and different agencies and authorities that have the task of subduing fraud have to get involved and put a stop to it. In the instance of which fraud has been uncovered, it is crucial to be aware of the red flags that were present in relation to fraud and associate them to the factors related to the fraud risk assessment. As Troy Gillard states in the Rd news magazine, a man that broke free after being acknowledged as suspicious when he wanted to take a loan out at the Cash Canada using a stolen ID amongst other official documents that had been stolen. It seemed that the ID and the other documents

(TCO 5) Fraud is an intentional misrepresentation of facts, made for the purpose of persuading another party to act in a way that causes injury or damage to that party. In our readings and discussions we have seen several examples of fraud in business. Using that experience (1) provide an example of a common fraudulent practice in business with an explanation of how the practice works and (2) name and describe each of the elements of the Fraud Triangle.

Internal fraud consists in “a type of fraud that is committed by an individual against an organization. [Furthermore], a perpetrator of fraud engages in activities that are designed to defraud, misappropriate property, or circumvent the regulations, law, or policies of a company”[8]. Not only has the incidence of internal fraud increased in frequency because of the availability of sensitive information such as client details or confidential business documents; moreover, this type of fraud is found in various types of organizations, ranging from corporations, public service institutions and financial institutions. Our analysis will concentrate on the most common and prolific types of internal fraud, namely identity theft, insider trading, loan fraud and wire fraud. Interestingly, PriceWaterhouseCooper conducted a survey that revealed that the “demographics of a typical fraudster are as follows: males (85% of cases), 31-50 years (72% of cases), reached high-school level (50%), Bachelor’s or post graduate degree (50%) and middle or senior management (52%)”[9].

In fraud committed against organizations, the victim of fraud is the employee’s organization. In frauds committed on behalf of an organization, executives usually are involved in some type of financial statement fraud; typically, to make the company’s reported financial results appear better than they actually are. In this second case, the victims are investors in the company’s stock. A third way to classify frauds is via the use of the ACFE’s occupational fraud definition, “the use of one’s occupation for personnel enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the employing organization’s resources or assets” (ACFE, 2010). The ACFE includes three major categories of occupational fraud: asset misappropriations involves the theft or misuse of the organization’s assets, corruption involves the wrongful use of influence in a business transaction in order to procure benefits contrary to their duty to their employer, and fraudulent financial statements involving falsification of an organization’s financial statements for personal gain.

The best theoretical model of fraud to describe why HealthSouth committed fraud is the fraud diamond not the fraud triangle. Both methods require that these three elements are present for committing fraud: perceived pressure, perceived opportunity, and rationalization. Understanding what motivated HealthSouth’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) Richard Scrushy to commit fraud, how the accounting staff committed and concealed the fraud, and how the staff justified their participation are crucial. However, anti-fraud professionals believe that changes in social behavior require the addition of a fourth element called capability. Capability includes “personal traits and abilities that play a major role in whether fraud will actually occur” (Fighting Fraud in the Government n.d.). For example, Scrushy’s persuasiveness and Cathy Edward’s position as Michael Vines’ boss increased their capabilities to commit fraud. If capable employees refused to participate, fraud occurrences decrease (Fighting Fraud in the Government n.d.) (Hamilton n.d.).

In the case of Phar-Mor fraud, the company was involved in cover up and some accounts were created to hide the fraudulent activities. Bad inventory counts in the stores were made to help with the cover up and deceit about activities that cost hundreds of millions of dollars. (Williams, S.L., 2011)

Some industry-specific factors, such as having valuable near-cash assets, can increase the organization's vulnerability. Also they will need to rationalize the actions as justifiable. The individuals committing the fraud must first convince themselves that their behavior is acceptable or will be temporary. For example, Barry Minkow’s believed that the lies and deceit are for the betterment of his company and that with time everything will eventually return to normal.

The second part is opportunity. The opportunity to commit fraud usually arises through weak internal controls.

“The first leg of the fraud triangle represents pressure. This is what motivates the crime in the first place. The individual

Fraud is defined as a deliberate misrepresentation that causes a person or business to suffer damages, often in the form of monetary losses through deception or concealment. And Occupational Fraud as defined by the ACFE is the use of one’s occupation for personal enrichment through the deliberate misuse or misapplication of the employing organization’s resources or assets. Traditional fraud triangle theory by Donald Cressey explains that propensity of fraud occurring in an organization lies on three critical elements which are Pressure, Opportunity, and Rationalization.

Essentially, all three elements of the fraud triangle must be present for fraud to be committed: pressure, opportunity, and rationalization. Additionally, nine factors provided the atmosphere for the perfect fraud storm of 2000 through 2002. The nine factors included: economy, moral values, incentives, expectations, debt, accounting rules, auditor dependence, greed, and educator failures (Albrecht et al., 2012). When combined with the elements of the fraud triangle these factors enabled organizations such as Enron and WorldCom to commit the fraudulent activities that resulted in this perfect storm.

If I suspected fraudulent activity within n organization where I work, I would use a professional skepticism approach. This can be broken down into there attributes:

Over the past two years, corporate America has endured a plethora of fraudulent acts committed by those of high status within their respective corporations, most of which involve internal fraud. Internal fraud has two main aspects, misappropriation of assets and fraudulent financial reporting, with the focus of this discussion lying within the former. Misappropriation of assets is defined as fraud for personal gain. It is the most common type of fraud found among employees and frequently includes theft of cash and inventory.