Page 147 - ACFE Fraud Reports 2009_2020

Frequency of Anti-Fraud Measures Anonymous Fraud Hotlines
There were 479 organizations that had fraud hotlines or
80%
other anonymous reporting mechanisms at the time the
75.4% lowing companion charts illustrate, organizations with hot-
70% frauds occurred, compared to 581 that did not. As the fol-
60% 59.0% lines had a median loss of $100,000 per scheme and detected
Percent of Cases 50% 45.9% 45.2% ganizations without hotlines suffered twice the median loss
their frauds within 15 months of inception. By contrast, or-
— $200,000 — and took 24 months to detect their frauds.
40%

30%
20% 29.2% Median Loss Based on Whether
Organization had Hotline
10%
0%
External Internal Fraud Hotline Surprise No $200,000
Audit Audit Training Audits
Anti-Fraud Measure Hotline

Yes $100,000
Effectiveness of Anti-Fraud
Measures $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000
Median Loss
In an effort to test the effectiveness of each anti-fraud con-
trol, we measured the median loss in cases where the anti-
fraud measure was present, then compared it to the median
loss in cases where the anti-fraud measure was absent. We
Median Number of Months to Detection
also measured the length of time it took to discover the Based on Whether Organization had Hotline
fraud, based on whether each of these factors was present
or not. These are obviously not precise indicators of the
value of each respective control — there are several factors No 24
that determine the size and duration of a fraud — but it
helps us get some sense of the impact the respective anti- Hotline
fraud measures had on fraud losses.
Yes 15

0 5 10 15 20 25
Months to Detection

ACFE Report to the Nation on Occupational Fraud & Abuse