If ever there was a case for the continuousbackground checking of existing employees, then the recent 2010 report of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) certainly emphasizes the urgent need for doing so.
A fraud suspect is not easy to stereotype. That's the word from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, which issued a recent report about the traits of people who steal from their employers. The average perpetrator has no criminal record, is more likely to be male than female, and is 31 to 45 years old, the group said in the report.
The study adds further insights into the profile of these first-time fraudsters. Around 50% of the losses caused by this category of employees happened after they had been with the duped company for more than five years. The longer they were with the organization the higher the losses they inflicted. Also the losses took longer to detect.
A different fraud survey revealed that 74 percent of employees had personally observed or had first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing in their companies. These cases go unreported.
The overall picture is not a pleasant one for companies. They are at high risk from their own employees; people who have attained positions of influence and trust; with no criminal background; they are not easily identifiable nor do they slot into any normal criminal profile. The situation is further muddied by the fact that in most instances fraud goes unreported or undetected.
To paraphrase a political philosopher, the price of a successful and safe business is eternal vigilance.' In other words, there is no substitute for continuous and periodic screening of employees no matter how trustworthy they seem.