
Firms are neglecting fraud risk management, says survey
Daily news headlines
NEW YORK – Despite six years living under the Sarbanes-Oxley (Sox) regime, firms have made inadequate progress in confronting the threat of corporate fraud, according to a new study by consultant and software provider Protiviti.
Only 49% of executives from Fortune 1000 firms and other large non-profit organisations said their fraud risk management strategy was well defined. The survey also recommends action to improve existent frameworks, as less than half of firms defined their risk management at entity as well as process level.
Sox – the regulatory offspring of the 2001 Enron scandal – is commonly credited with being one of the more punitive examples of regulatory legislation, attracting considerable industry criticism for alleged competitive disadvantages it has created for American firms.
The study shows that despite the regulation’s original fraud focus, fraud risk management is often combined with other aspects of Sox compliance or general audit planning – allowing for sidelining or neglect.
The results caution that this neglect is probably unintentional, with 72% of subjects reporting the importance of fraud awareness and training; few made training mandatory for the board members or internal auditors who require it most.
The researchers highlight the need for ongoing concentration to fight financial crime. Last month, the UK’s Financial Services Authority also reinforced the importance for continued focus on fighting fraud, highlighting the threat that amid market turbulence firms’ fraud risk management could slip in favour of more immediate threats.
Only users who have a paid subscription or are part of a corporate subscription are able to print or copy content.
To access these options, along with all other subscription benefits, please contact info@risk.net or view our subscription options here: http://subscriptions.risk.net/subscribe
You are currently unable to print this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
You are currently unable to copy this content. Please contact info@risk.net to find out more.
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Printing this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
Copyright Infopro Digital Limited. All rights reserved.
You may share this content using our article tools. Copying this content is for the sole use of the Authorised User (named subscriber), as outlined in our terms and conditions - https://www.infopro-insight.com/terms-conditions/insight-subscriptions/
If you would like to purchase additional rights please email info@risk.net
More on Regulation
SEC may lack legal clout to impose new dealer rule – Citadel
Adoption of quantitative dealer definition may require congressional changes to US Securities Exchange Act
US Basel endgame hits clearing with op risk capital charges
Dealers also fret about unlevel playing field compared with requirements in the EU
CFTC’s clearing house recovery rule splits industry
Some fear CCPs will fast-track recovery, others say any rule book will be ignored in emergency
EU banks ‘will play for time’ in stand-off over India’s CCPs
Lawyers say banks are unlikely to set up subsidiaries and will instead pin hopes on revised Emir fix
ECB mulls intervention on uneven banking book reporting
Inconsistency among EU banks on whether deposits and loans are in scope for credit spread risk
Iosco warns of leveraged loan ‘vulnerabilities’
As recovery rates plummet, report calls for clearer covenants and more transparency on addbacks
Narrow path to compromise on EU’s post-Brexit clearing rules
Lawmakers unlikely to support industry demand to delete Emir active accounts proposal altogether
The Fed’s stress test models are inaccurate. Something has to change
First step for US regulator to improve its bank loss forecasts would be to open up its models to public scrutiny, argue two banking industry advocates