Book Read Free

Inge Sebyan Black

Page 22

by 4<8=8AB@0B>@


  educators, states that their findings show evidence that a willingness to cheat

  has become the norm. The 2008 study found that young people believe that

  ethics and character are important but are cynical about whether a person

  can be ethical and still succeed.

  THE DISHONEST EMPLOYEE

  Because there is no fail-safe technique for recognizing the potentially dis-

  honest employee on sight, it is important to try to gain some insight into

  the reasons that employees may steal. If some rule of thumb could be devel-

  oped that will help identify the patterns of the potential thief, it would pro-

  vide some warning for an alert manager.

  There is no simple answer to the question of why previously honest peo-

  ple suddenly start to steal from their employers. The mental and emotional

  processes that lead to this change are complex, and motivation may come

  from any number of sources.

  Some employees steal because of resentment over real or imagined

  injustice that they blame on management indifference or malevolence.

  Some feel that they must maintain status and steal to augment their incomes

  because of financial problems. Some may steal simply to tide themselves over

  in a genuine emergency. They rationalize the theft by assuring themselves

  that they will return the money after the current problem is solved. Some

  simply want to indulge themselves, and many, strangely enough, steal to

  help others. Alternatively, employees may steal because no one cares,

  because no one is looking, or because the absence or inadequacy of theft

  controls eliminates the fear of being caught. Still others may steal simply

  for excitement.

  Internal Investigations and Controls

  145

  The Fraud Triangle

  A simplified answer to the question of why employees steal is depicted in the

  fraud triangle. According to this concept, theft occurs when three elements

  are present:

  1. Incentive or motive

  2. Attitude/rationalization or desire

  3. Opportunity

  In simple terms, incentive or motive is a reason to steal. Motives might be

  the resentment of an employee who feels underpaid or the vengefulness of

  an employee who has been passed over for promotion. Attitude or desire

  builds on motive by imagining the satisfaction or gratification that would

  come from a potential action: “Taking a stereo system would make me feel

  good, because I always wanted a good stereo system.” Opportunity is the

  absence of barriers that prevent someone from taking an item. Desire and

  motive are beyond the scope of the loss-prevention manager; opportunity,

  however, is the responsibility of security.

  A high percentage of employee thefts begin with opportunities that are

  regularly presented to them. If security systems are lax or supervision is indifferent, the temptation to steal items that are improperly secured or unac-

  countable may be too much to resist by any but the most resolute employee.

  Many experts agree that the fear of discovery is the most important deter-

  rent to internal theft. When the potential for discovery is eliminated, theft is bound to follow. Threats of dismissal or prosecution of any employee found

  stealing are never as effective as the belief that any theft will be discovered by management supervision.

  Danger Signs

  The root causes of theft are many and varied, but certain signs can indicate

  that a hazard exists. The conspicuous consumer presents perhaps the most

  easily identified risk. Employees who habitually or suddenly acquire expen-

  sive cars and/or clothes and who generally seem to live beyond their means

  should be watched. Such persons are visibly extravagant and appear indif-

  ferent to the value of money. Even though such employees may not be steal-

  ing to support expensive tastes, they are likely to run into financial difficulties through reckless spending. Employees may then be tempted to look beyond

  their salary checks for ways to support an extravagant lifestyle.

  Employees who show a pattern of financial irresponsibility are also a

  potential risk. Many people are incapable of handling their money. They

  146

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  may do their job with great skill and efficiency, but they are in constant dif-

  ficulty in their private lives. These people are not necessarily compulsive

  spenders, nor do they necessarily have expensive tastes. (They probably live

  quite modestly, since they have never been able to manage their affairs

  effectively enough to live otherwise.) They are simply people who are un-

  able to come to grips with their own economic realities. Garnishments or

  inquiries by creditors may identify such employees. If there seems a reason

  to make one, a credit check might reveal the tangled state of affairs.

  Employees caught in a genuine financial squeeze are also possible prob-

  lems. If they have been hit with financial demands from illnesses in the family

  or heavy tax liens, they may find the pressures too great to bear. If such a

  situation comes to the attention of management, counseling is in order.

  Many companies maintain funds that are designated to make low-interest

  loans in such cases. Alternatively, some arrangement might be worked

  out through a credit union. In any event, employees in such extremities

  need help fast. They should get that help, both as a humane response to their

  needs and as a means of protecting company assets.

  In addition to these general categories, there are specific danger signals

  that should be noted:

  •

  Gambling on or off premises

  •

  Excessive drinking or signs of other drug use

  •

  Obvious extravagance

  •

  Persistent borrowing

  •

  Requests for advances

  •

  Bouncing personal checks or problems with creditors

  What Employees Steal

  The employee thief will take anything that may be useful or that has resale

  value. The thief can get at the company funds in many ways—directly or

  indirectly—through collusion with vendors, collusion with outside thieves

  or hijackers, fake invoices, receipting for goods never received, falsifying

  inventories, payroll padding, false certification of overtime, padded expense

  accounts, computer records manipulation, overcharging, undercharging, or

  simply by gaining access to a cash box or company goods.

  This is only a sample of the kinds of attacks that can be made on company

  assets using the systems set up for the operation of the business. It is in these areas that the greatest losses can occur because they are frequently based on a

  Internal Investigations and Controls

  147

  systematic looting of the goods and services in which the company deals and

  the attendant operational cash flow.

  Significant losses do occur, however, in other, sometimes unexpected,

  areas. Furnishings frequently disappear. In some firms with indifferent traffic

  control procedures, this kind of theft can be a very real problem. Desks,

  chairs, computers and other office equipment, paintings, rugs—all can be

  carried away by the enterprising
employee thief.

  Office supplies can be another problem if they are not properly super-

  vised. Beyond the anticipated attrition in pencils, paper clips, notepads,

  and rubber bands, sometimes these materials are stolen in case lots. Many

  firms that buy their supplies at discount are in fact receiving stolen prop-

  erty. The market in stolen office supplies is a brisk one and is becoming

  more so as the prices for this merchandise soar.

  The office equipment market is another active one, and the inside thief is

  quick to respond to its needs. Computers always bring a good price, as does

  equipment used to support high-tech offices.

  Personal property is also vulnerable. Office thieves do not make fine dis-

  tinctions between company property and that of their fellow workers. The

  company has a very real stake in this kind of theft because personal tragedy

  and decline in morale follow in its wake.

  Although security personnel cannot assume responsibility for losses

  of this nature because they are not in a position to know about the prop-

  erty involved or to control its handling (and they should so inform all

  employees), they should make every effort to apprise all employees of the

  threat. They should further note from time to time the degree of carelessness

  the staff displays in handling personal property and send out reminders of the

  potential dangers of loss.

  Methods of Theft

  A 2007 report by Gaston and Associates reported that the American Manage-

  ment Association believes that 20 percent of business failures were the result of employee dishonesty. In addition, a 2010 report by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners estimates that 5 percent of total revenue losses for most

  companies are from employee fraud of some type (2010 Report to the Nation,

  p. 4). Therefore, there is a very real need to examine the shapes that dishonesty frequently takes. There is no way to describe every kind of theft, but some

  examples may serve to give an idea of the dimensions of the problem:

  148

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  1. Payroll and personnel employees collaborating to falsify records by the

  use of nonexistent employees or by retaining terminated employees on

  the payroll

  2. Padding overtime reports and kicking back part of the extra unearned

  pay to the authorizing supervisor

  3. Pocketing unclaimed wages

  4. Splitting increased payroll that has been raised on signed, blank checks

  for use in the authorized signer’s absence

  5. Maintenance personnel and contract servicepeople in collusion to steal

  and sell office equipment

  6. Receiving clerks and truck drivers in collusion on falsification of mer-

  chandise count (extra unaccounted merchandise is fenced)

  7. Purchasing agents in collusion with vendors to falsify purchase and

  payment documents (purchasing agent issues authorization for pay-

  ment on goods never shipped after forging receipts of shipment)

  8. Purchasing agent in collusion with vendor to pay inflated price

  9. Mailroom and supply personnel packing and mailing merchandise to

  themselves for resale

  10. Accounts payable personnel paying fictitious bills to an account set up

  for their own use

  11. Taking incoming cash without crediting the customer’s account

  12. Paying creditors twice and pocketing the second check

  13. Appropriating checks made out to cash

  14. Raising the amount on checks after voucher approval or raising the

  amount on vouchers after their approval

  15. Pocketing small amounts from incoming payments and applying later

  payments on other accounts to cover shortages

  16. Removal of equipment or merchandise with the trash

  17. Invoicing goods below regular price and getting a kickback from the

  purchaser

  18. Manipulating accounting software packages to credit personal

  accounts with electronic account overages

  19. Issuing (and cashing) checks on returned merchandise not actually

  returned

  20. Forging checks, destroying them when they are returned with the

  statement from the bank, and changing cash account records

  accordingly

  21. Appropriating credit card, electronic bank account, and other elec-

  tronic data

  Internal Investigations and Controls

  149

  The Contagion of Theft

  Theft of any kind is a contagious disorder. Petty, relatively innocent pilfer-

  age by a few employees spreads through a facility. As more people partici-

  pate, others will follow until even the most rigid break down and join in.

  Pilferage becomes acceptable—even respectable. It gains general social

  acceptance that is reinforced by almost total peer participation. Few people

  make independent ethical judgments under such circumstances. In this

  microcosm, the act of petty pilferage is no longer viewed as unacceptable

  conduct. It has become not a permissible sin but instead a right.

  The docks of New York City were once an example of this progression.

  Forgetting for the moment the depredations of organized crime and the cli-

  mate of dishonesty that characterized that operation for so many years, even

  longshoremen not involved in organized theft had worked out a system all

  their own. For every so many cases of whiskey unloaded, for example, one

  case went to the men. Little or no attempt was made to conceal this pilfer-

  age. It was a tradition, a right. When efforts were made to curtail the prac-

  tice, labor difficulties arose. It soon became evident that certain pilferage

  would have to be accepted as an unwritten part of the union contract

  under the existing circumstances.

  This is not a unique situation. The progression from limited pilferage

  through its acceptance as normal conduct to the status of an unwritten right

  has been repeated time and again. The problem is, it does not stop there.

  Ultimately pilferage becomes serious theft, and then the real trouble starts.

  Even before pilferage expands into larger operations, it presents a difficult

  problem to any business. Even where the amount of goods taken by any

  one individual is small, the aggregate can represent a significant expense.

  With the costs of materials, manufacture, administration, and distribution

  rising as they are, there is simply no room for added, avoidable expenses

  in today’s competitive markets. The business that can operate the most effi-

  ciently and offer quality goods at the lowest prices because of the efficiency

  of its operation will have a huge advantage in the marketplace. When so

  many companies are fighting for their economic lives, there is simply no

  room for waste—and pilferage is just that.

  Moral Obligation to Control Theft

  When we consider that internal theft accounts for at least twice the loss from

  external theft (that is, from burglars, armed robbers, and shoplifters com-

  bined), we must be impressed with the scope of the problem facing today’s

  150

  The Art of Investigative Interviewing

  businesspeople. Businesses have a financial obligation to stockholders to earn

  a profit on their investments. Fortunately, steps can be taken to cont
rol

  internal theft. Setting up a program of education and control that is vigor-

  ously administered and supervised can cut losses to relatively insignificant

  amounts.

  It is also important to observe that management has a moral obligation to

  its employees to protect their integrity by taking every possible step to avoid

  presenting open opportunities for pilferage and theft that would tempt even

  the most honest people to take advantage of the opportunity for gain by theft.

  This is not to suggest that each company should assume a paternal role

  toward its employees and undertake their responsibilities for them. It is to

  suggest strongly that the company should keep its house sufficiently in order

  to avoid enticing employees to acts that could result in great personal tragedy

  as well as in damage to the company.

  Employment History and Reference Checking

  The key to reducing internal theft is the quality of employees employed by the

  facility. The problem, however, will not be eliminated during the hiring

  process, no matter how carefully and expertly selection is made. Systems of

  theft prevention and programs of employee motivation are ongoing efforts

  that must recognize that elements of availability, susceptibility, and opportu-

  nity are dynamic factors in a constant state of flux. The initial approach to the problem, however, starts at the beginning—in the very process of selecting

  personnel to work in the facility. During this process, a knowledgeable

  screener who is aware of what to look for in the employment application

  or reśumećan develop an enormous amount of vital information about the

  prospective employee. Some answers are not as obvious as they once were,

  and the ability to perceive and evaluate what appears on the application or

  reśumeís more important than ever as applications become more restrictive

  in what they can ask.

  The increased focus on screening and background checks over the past

  decade is a direct result of the following:

  •

  A rise in lawsuits from negligent hiring

  •

  An increase in child abuse reporting and abductions, which have resulted

  in new laws that require criminal background checks for anyone who

 

‹ Prev