BNM - CFIP - handout 1

Forensic Accounting - Handout 1: CFIP 1

FORENSIC ACCOUNTING MODULECERTIFIED FINANCIAL INVESTIGATOR PROGRAM

BANK NEGARA MALAYSIA

Prof. Dr. Syed Noh Syed Ahmad, CA(M)Fakulti Perakaunan

Universiti Teknologi MARA

4th – 18th March 2013Akademi Kastam DiRaja MalaysiaBukit BaruMelaka

Handout 1


PLEASE DO THE

APPRAISAL QUESTIONS


Topics in Handout 1

• Overview of accounting • Overview of reporting environment. • What is forensic accounting? The fraud

triangle and basic theories of criminology• Review of process of preparing financial

statements – Income Statement and Balance Sheet

• Management decisions affecting the bottom line


What is Accounting?

• An information system that provides reports to stakeholders about the economic activities and conditions of a business

• Art of classifying, recording and summarising of financial events

• Art and science of recording business transactions in a methodological manner so as to show: – the financial position– the profit or loss of organizations


A Brief History of Accounting


• The first accounting book was written by Luca Pacioli in a section of a book on mathematics entitled “Summa de Arithmetica, Geometrica, Propotioni et Proportionalita”, (trans: "Everything about Arithmetic, Geometry, and Proportions." published in 1494 (printed on Nov 10, 1494!).

• This book was written as a digest and guide to existing mathematical knowledge, and bookkeeping was only one of five topics covered.


• Ever since the book written by Luca Pacioli, accounting practitioners in public accounting, industry, and not-for-profit organizations, as well as investors, lending institutions, business firms, and all other users for financial information are still using the double entry system of accounting as written by Luca Pacioli.


INTRODUCTION - WHAT IS FORENSIC

ACCOUNTING


What is Forensic Accounting?• Forensic means “Relating to, used in,

or appropriate for courts of law or for public discussion or argumentation” (Am. Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed.)

• Accounting means, “a system that provides quantitative information about finances” (WordNet 2.0)

• Forensic accounting is the application of accounting skills to provide quantitative financial info. about matters before the courts (ACFE).


• “In general, forensic accounting is the

application of a specialized body of knowledge to economic transaction analysis and reporting, suitable to the purpose(s) of establishing accountability and/or valuation, often in a court of law or administrative proceeding.”

Journal of Forensic Accounting:


• Thus, the preceding explanations and

definitions clearly establish the fact that “forensic accounting” has close ties with the potential of the findings being used in the court of law.

• It is not a specialised field of accounting per se, but the integration of accounting, legal knowledge and investigative skills.


Focus of Forensic Accounting?

• The essential components of forensic accounting include an attempt to piece together or reconstruct a past event or events using financial information where that reconstruction is likely to be used in some judicial proceeding (e.g., criminal court, civil court, deposition, mediation, arbitration, settlement negotiation, plea bargaining).


Aspects of Forensic Accounting in the Battle Against Financial Crime

• Forensic accounting has the potential to be useful in all organisations investigating amongst other things:– Tax evasion and criminal wrong doings– Compliance with laws and regulations– Other criminal matters such as fraud, money

laundering, theft, asset misappropriations, etc.


Developing Forensic Accounting Expertise

• In regulatory and law enforcement and taxation agencies, expertise in forensic accounting is an added skill that will enhance and complement existing knowledge that the officers possess.

• Thus, in the process of developing expertise in Forensic accounting, other skills and knowledge are essential. Accordingly, these items are:


• Knowledge of the relevant laws• Rules of Evidence• Investigative competency• Knowledge of fraud• Interviewing and interrogation skills• An understanding of the psychological

theories relating to criminal behaviour• Communication and interpersonal skills• IT skills


• The integration of these knowledge/

skills with accounting will result in a powerful weapon in the fight against tax evaders and defaulters, bribery and other forms of corruption, corporate scandals and other criminal activities.

• In the current situation, knowledge of forensic accounting is no longer an option but a critical element in the fight against financial misdeeds.


Why Is Developing Expertise in Forensic Accounting Important?

– Increasing sophistication of criminals in the public and corporate sectors

– Bribery and other forms of corruption in the corporate sector are on the increase

– Investigating and persecuting such offences require specialised skills

– Part of the overall enhancing of the “core of knowledge” of investigating officers who may not be exposed to such investigations

– Enhancing the knowledge of the investigating officers


KPMG Fraud Survey in Malaysia (2004)62% of respondents felt that fraud is a

major problem for Malaysian business generally. 83% of respondents acknowledged experiencing fraud in their organization. This is an increase of 33% from the 2002 survey.

36% of companies suffered total losses of RM10,001 to RM100,000 to fraudulent conduct in the survey period while 17% suffered losses in excess of RM 1 million

87% of the frauds were perpetrated internally [non-management employees (69%) and management employees (18%)]. This was a decrease of 10% from 2002.


Year Cases Amount of Losses (RM mil.)

1992 4,386 153.08

1993 4,929 181.08

1994 4,229 153.84

1995 4,227 180.91

1996 4,809 238.59

1997 7,137 556.93

1998 10,390 4,600.00

1999 9,546 1,426.80

2000 9,931 575.46

2001 10,578 797.89

2002 10,857 1,125.60

2003 11,714 579.80

2004 9,899 836.29

Source: CCID, Bukit Aman

CommercialCrime inMalaysia


The Bad News!!!!

• In a survey (December 2005) by PriceWaterhouseCoopers, involving more than 3600 corporate officers in 34 countries, financial fraud increased 22%.

• Those who can quantify the losses, totaled about US$2 billion and the average loss is about US$1.7 per organisation


• The study, conducted in conjunction with Martin-Luther University in Germany, revealed that fraud was detected by chance in more than 33% of the cases, while internal audit detected the fraud 26 percent of the time.

• Of those who committed the fraud in North America, 60 percent were employees of the defrauded company. Almost one-quarter of the perpetrators were senior managers--the very people required to sign off on financial statements.


KPMG 2009 SURVEY – BRIEF FINDINGS

• 49% of all respondents experienced at least one fraud during the survey period with a total of 714 separate fraud incidences being reported.

• The value of fraud reported in the survey period was RM63.95 million. Not all respondents disclosed information on the number of fraud incidents or the value of fraud detected (15% of the 85 respondents who said that they were victims of fraud were unsure of the number of incidents whereas 53% were unsure of the value of financial losses due to fraud). Hence, this suggests that losses may be far bigger than the disclosed amounts.


• Consistent with the 2004 survey, internally

perpetrated fraud (perpetrated by management and non-management employees) accounted for 87% of the total reported fraud value of RM63.95 million.

• Theft of cash (39%), theft of inventory (31%), fraudulent expense claims (26%) followed by kickbacks (25%) were the most common types of fraud perpetrated. Theft of physical assets appeared to be a popular category of fraud perpetrated among non-management level employees and external parties. Management level employees however are more prone to commit theft of funds (outgoing).


• Overall most fraud was detected internally,

with internal controls (55%) being the most common method followed by notification by employee (33%), internal audit review (30%), notification by customer/ supplier (25%) and anonymous letter/ informant/ whistleblower (25%).

• Greed/ lifestyle (62%) and personal financial pressure (39%) were cited as the two most common motivations for fraud.


• 39% of respondents indicated that fraud “red

flags” (early warning signs or indicators that fraud may have occurred) were not acted upon by management.

• Only 22% of respondents felt that their employees in their organization were adequately trained to recognize fraud “red- flags”.

• Poor internal controls (56%) followed by collusion between employees and third party (45%) and poor ethical practices (39%) were the three most important factors contributing to major frauds.


• Only 54% percent of respondents believed that their organization’s anti fraud policies, procedures and controls are adequate to prevent, detect, and respond to fraud incidences.

• 62% of organizations are providing a means for employees to report allegations and incidents of fraud and unethical conduct of which only 49% said that they offered anonymous reporting to employees.


• The most common steps taken by companies to mitigate the risks of fraud are reviewing and/or improving internal controls (93%), establishing a corporate code of conduct/ethics (74%), increased role of audit committee (63%) and preemployment screening (62%).

• Approximately 38% of respondents had experienced unethical behavior during the survey period with the most common occurrences were management employee’s conflict of interest (49%), falsely claiming sick leave or absenteeism (46%) and conducting business transactions in a manner which derives an unwarranted personal advantage (32%).








The Good News

• A simple reason for the increase could be that management, regulators, law enforcement officers, boards of directors and auditors have actually gotten better at detecting the fraud.

• "I think the investment in control systems is paying off and detecting more crime, and I think it remains to be seen whether that pays off in the future," a spokesman of PCW said. This is based on the findings the “nearly 80 percent of companies polled, said they did not consider it likely that they would suffer from financial fraud over the next five years”.


CORRUPTION IN MALAYSIA

Pejabat Bendahari UiTM14 Feb 2013

3636

Malaysia’s Corruption Perception Index

2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

4.9 4.3 4.4 4.5 5.0 5.2 4.9


37

STATISTIK OPERASI


3838Source: SPRM Laporan Tahunan 2010 http://www.sprm.gov.my/


39

Ruj: Laporan Tahunan SPRM 2011


40



41



42

TINDAKAN TATATERTIB


43



44Ruj: Laporan Tahunan SPRM 2011


45Ruj: Laporan Tahunan SPRM 2011


What is Fraud?

• A simple explanation of fraud There are two main methods of obtaining

things illegally: either physically force (sometime the actual use of violence) someone to give you what you want, or you trick them out of their belongings. The first is called robbery, and the second method is fraud. Fraud always involve trickery and deception.


• Fraud is deception that includes the following elements (Albrecht, et. al):1. A representation

2. About a material point

3. Which is false

4. And intentionally or recklessly so

5. Which is believed

6. And acted upon by the victim

7. To the victim’s damage


Why People Commit Fraud – The Fraud Triangle

• Of the numerous ways and reasons why people commit fraud, there are three common elements common to all – these elements were identified by one of the pioneering researchers on fraud - Donald Cressey. He introduced the concept of the “Fraud Triangle”.


CRIMINOLOGY AND FRAUD THEORIES


Classical Criminology

• Based on the concept of deterrence. It is only the threat of punishment that will deter a person from committing a crime, based on the following concept:– a person has the choice of choosing criminal

versus non-criminal behaviour.– a person will choose a criminal behaviour if

the rewards are greater than the risk or work required to acquire such rewards.


– A person may choose not to commit criminal acts if he fears of society’s reaction to such acts.

– The stronger the society’s reaction against crime, the more likely it is to influence behavior.

– There is no more effective crime-prevention device than punishment if it is strong enough to make crime unattractive.

• Based on this classical theory, under the proper sets of circumstances, all persons have the potential to be criminals – they do not become so because of society’s reactions to such acts and the fear of punishment.

• There are of course other theories of criminal behaviour such as psychological, sociological, etc theories.


Edwin H Sutherland: White Collar Crime

• The term “White collar crime” was first introduced by a criminologist from Indiana University (ahem! – I am an alumnus of this august university – although too young to be his classmate!), Edwin H Sutherland.

• In 1939, Sutherland defined white collar crime as “a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social stated in the course of his occupation”. See how “respectable” the corporate crooks (Madoff, Skilling, Ebbers, etc appear to be before the discovery of the frauds!!!).


Edwin H. Sutherland

• These crimes include:– Criminal acts of corporations– Individuals in corporate capacity

• Theory of differential association– Crime is learned– Not genetic– Learned from intimate personal groups


• Thus, Sutherland rejected the notion that attributed theft and fraud to either poverty or genetics.

• Just like any other criminals, the white collar criminals learned how to commit crimes much like other persons learn other things – the longer they are at it, the better they became.


Donald R. Cressey

• His ground breaking research was conducted in the 1940’s in the United States. He interviewed 200 imprisoned embezzlers

• The outcome of his research was:– Identifying or classifying offender types; and– Fraud Triangle


Cressey’s Offender Types

1. Independent businessmen – “Borrowing”– Funds really theirs

2. Long-term violators– “Borrowing”– Protect family– Company cheating them– Company generally dishonest


Cressey’s Offender Types

3. Absconders Take the money and run Usually unmarried, loners Blame “outside influences” or “personal

defects


Donald Cressey’s Fraud Triangle

• Of the numerous ways and reasons why people commit fraud, there are three common elements common to all – these elements were identified by one of the pioneering researchers on fraud - Donald Cressey. He introduced the concept of the “Fraud Triangle”.


The Fraud Triangle

Perc

eive

d Pr

essu

re Rationalisation

Perceived Opportunity

Sometimes this is called the

“Motive”


Fraud Triangle

• When all the elements come together, then fraud will occur.

• The three elements of the fraud triangle are interactive

• In order to reduce the occurrence of fraud, one of the elements must be eliminated.

• Most of the efforts to reduce fraud are concentrated on one of these elements: opportunity.


Perceived Pressure

• Usually divided into four different types of pressures:

1. Financial pressures

2. Vices

3. Work related pressures

4. Other pressures


Financial Pressures

• Greed• Living beyond one’s means• Others?


Vice Pressures

• Gambling,• Others?


Work related pressures

• Fear of losing job• Others?


Other pressures

• Pressure from family• Others


Perceived Opportunity

• A Perceived opportunity to commit fraud, to conceal it, or to avoid being punished.

• The following list illustrates six factors which increase opportunities for individuals to commit fraud within an organisation:– Lack of control in organisations to prevent or

deter fraud (control factors)– Inability to evaluate performance


–Failure to discipline or prosecute perpetrators

–Lack of information–Ignorance or apathy and

incapacity–Lack of an audit trail


Rationalization

• Attempt to explain or justify the commitment of fraud with perceived reasons even though these reasons or justifications are not true.

• Examples are:– The organisation owes it to me– I am only borrowing the money and will pay it back– Nobody will get hurt– Everybody in the organisation do it, so I am no

exception– Etc.


• Knowledge of the Fraud Triangle is an

important to understand the circumstances under which fraud are committed.

• Understanding of these aspects are important especially when investigating fraud – these factors could serve as a guide in determining the suspects or perpetrators of fraud.


W. Steve Albrecht

• 1940’s U.S.• Analyzed 212 actual frauds

• Developed “Red Flags”– Personal characteristics– Organizational environment

• Fraud Scale


W. Steve Albrecht

Nine motivators of fraud1. Living beyond means

2. Overwhelming desire for personal gain

3. High personal debt

4. Close association with customers

5. Pay not commensurate with job


W. Steve Albrecht

Nine motivators of fraud6. Wheeler-dealer

7. Strong challenge to beat system

8. Excessive gambling

9. Family/peer pressure


The Fraud Scale

• Situational pressures– Immediate problems with environment– Usually debts/losses

• Perceived opportunities– Poor controls

• Personal integrity– Individual code of behavior

Forensic Accounting - Handout 1: CFIP

74

The Fraud Scale


The 20/60/20 Rule

• No specific author for this theory, only “forensic experts” who indicate that their experience suggests that the general population can be divided in three categories:– 20% would never commit a fraud.– 60% would commit a fraud if the chance of

getting caught is considered low.– 20% would seek to commit a fraud regardless

of the circumstances.


The GONE theory: Identifying potential fraud perpetrators and situations

• The GONE theory (also coined by nameless fraud “experts”) can be used to identify potential fraudsters and circumstances which could encourage the occurrence of fraud:– G: Greed– O: Opportunity to take advantage– N: Need for whatever is taken– E: Expectation of being caught or discovered is low.

• Could be used to identify personnel who exhibit these characteristics and thus take proactive actions to prevent fraud from happening.


Fraud theories by M. T. Biegelman and J. T. Bartow (2006)

• The two authors consider the above theories of fraud as “traditional” and have designed “some theories of their own”.

• Although these “new” fraud theories may seem “light-hearted and even whimsical” at first, the authors opined that nevertheless, based on their many years as fraud investigators, speak “volumes” about how and why fraud is perpetrated and all too often successful.

• So here goes!


Tip of the Iceberg Theory of Fraud

• When initially discovered, frauds is just a small part of the actual amount of the loss, but is just like the tip of the iceberg!

• The amount of actual loss is much larger after a thorough investigation takes place


Potato Chip Theory of Fraud

• Committing fraud and getting away with it can become addictive.

• Once a perpetrator succeeds at an embezzlement, corruption, bribery, etc; it gets harder and harder to stop that activity and even branching out to new types of fraud.

• Greed and success in not getting caught become addictive and the behavior continues, which will eventually leads to the downfall of these criminals.

WorldCom is an example of this typeof criminal behavior.


Rotten Apple Theory of Fraud• This “theory” relates to the personal characteristics of the

leaders of the organisations. Leaders who lack characters and integrity and who turn to fraud and abuse, can have a bad influence on people they lead: such as in the case of employees who turn to fraud because their managers were doing and getting away with it.

• I would like to call it the “fish starts rotting from the head” theory. I think I will contact the authors to give an Asian variation of this theory!

ENRON is a good example of thistheory.


Low Hanging Fruit Theory of Fraud

• This refers to the lower risk but high occurrence simple frauds such as purchasing fraud, inventory theft and thus these frauds are normally given less attention.

• Because of the uncomplicated nature of the fraud, it would take a longer time until it is discovered and by that time the damage could be substantial.


Addition by Subtraction Theory of Fraud

• Refers to the benefits that an organisation receives when it takes a proactive action to fraud detection, investigation and a zero tolerance towards fraudulent behavior by employees.

• Thus by removing an employee who has committed fraud, a risk is removed and that improves an organisation


Fraudster as Employee Theory of Fraud

• Good and dedicated employees are assets of the company and critical to the success of the business: they are concerned with the well – being, future and sustainability of the business.

• Fraudsters cold not be considered as employees of the business as they are masquerading (pretending) to be employees.

• As such, stern action should be taken against the fraudsters as they cannot be considered as employees.


Approaches to Fraud Investigation

• Two approaches:– The types of evidence produce– The elements of fraud

• According to Albrecht, et. al., most investigators rely heavily on interviews


Evidence Square

TestimonialEvidence

PhysicalEvidence

PersonalObservation

DocumentaryEvidence


Testimonial Evidence

• Testimonial evidence: Gathered from individuals, and techniques used to gather testimonial evidence includes interviewing, interrogation and honesty tests.


Documentary Evidence

• Documentary evidence: evidence gathered from paper, computers, and other printed or written cources.

• Common investigative techniques include document examination, public record searches, audits, computer searches, net worth method and financial statement analysis.

• Increasingly, corporate databases and e-mails often are useful for these documentary evidence


Physical Evidence

• Physical evidence: Such as fingerprints, stolen property and other tangible evidence associated with dishonest acts.

• The gathering of such physical evidence often involves forensic analysis by experts.


Personal observation

• Personal observation: involves evidence that is sensed (seen heard, felt, etc) by the investigators themselves.

• Involves techniques such as surveillance and covert operations


Elements of Fraud

Theft

Concealment

Conversion


Elements of Fraud• Theft act investigative methods involve efforts to

catch the perpetrators in the act of embezzlement or to gather information about the actual theft acts.

• Concealment investigative methods involve focusing on records, documents, computer programs and other places where the perpetrators try to hide their dishonest acts.

• Conversion investigative methods involve searching for ways in which perpetrators spent their assets.


TERIMA KASIH

Documents

BNM - CFIP - handout 1