Management that turns deaf ears when subordinates report false billing or illegal marketing in dealing with federal or state governments can unleash a torrent of financial and reputational harm on the company. Indeed, that scenario is just the sort of situation that can turn into a full-blown, multi-million-dollar whistleblower settlement brought by a company insider under qui tam provisions of federal and state False Claims Acts.
Many organizations overlook their ERP system as a “data-driven” line of defense. It is a transaction-based system that, if properly managed, can assist in preventing corporate failures or capturing illegal activities that can cripple an organization. It’s designed to protect an organization, small or large, private or public, from illegal activity. In the wake of [...]
Companies complain about the burdens of anti-corruption compliance. They need to put things in perspective. The “greatest” risk of them all may be the False Claims Act (FCA).
Breaking shop windows during a blackout and defrauding companies or taking advantage of lax regulatory enforcement may appear at first blush to be completely different phenomena. But if you think about their similarities, it’s apparent that they are all manifestations of the same human predisposition to break or bend the rules for immediate personal gain in circumstances where there is a small likelihood of getting caught.
John Hanson wraps up his series on the Fraud Triangle, today focusing on the perception factor, which though not part of the Fraud Triangle, may be an overriding factor in a person’s decision whether to violate a compliance policy, act unethically or commit a fraud, even when risk levels are high within the three Fraud Triangle factors.
In Part 1 of this series, John Hanson provided an overview of the Fraud Triangle and how incorporating it into compliance risk assessments can improve a compliance program’s assessment and prioritization of compliance risks. Parts 2 and 3 went into more detail concerning the “opportunity” and “rationalization” factors of the Fraud Triangle. Today he focuses on the “motivation” factor of the Fraud Triangle.
In Part 1 of this series, John Hanson provided an overview of the Fraud Triangle and how incorporating it into compliance risk assessments can improve a compliance program’s assessment and prioritization of compliance risks. Now he focuses on the “opportunity” factor of the Fraud Triangle and provides some practical ways to incorporate this factor into a larger compliance risk assessment.
John Hanson, a corporate monitor and former FBI agent that specialized in fraud investigations, introduces the Fraud Triangle that identifies three causes for occupational fraud. Throughout this series, he will share practical thoughts about how compliance professionals can incorporate each factor of the Fraud Triangle into their own compliance risk assessments and programs.
Daniel Draz of Fraud Solutions goes over the five common themes in job descriptions for the senior level GRC investigations position.
Incident and event notification systems foster real time communication among key business stakeholders when an incident or event occurs. Aside from the primary purpose surrounding event notification, these systems also address a company’s compliance, regulatory or contractual obligations concerning event notification, data (breach) protection, ethics violations, investigations and information protection. Secondarily to the event notification [...]