The article “Who Owns Fraud?” by Dan Torpey discusses practically applicable methods of making a company’s system of fraud management roles clear. The author reports that organizations tend to fail in defining the roles clearly enough and do not ensure appropriate communication on the matter, which is not only confusing and inefficient but also decreases employees’ trust and belief in the programs. The author suggests that it would be better to ensure shared responsibilities for a team of individuals that all have a part in anti-fraud programs.
Each person should be assigned a particular goal and is supposed to report and be accountable to the team and the chairperson. The latter is to be appointed by the team and performs managerial and leadership functions and, when applicable, determines the general direction of the program. Torpey points out that for some organizations, the authoritative guidance of the chairperson is not the best choice; in this case, the team conjointly discusses as the necessary aspects of the program and makes decisions together. Finally, the team needs to be representative of all the departments that are likely to be involved in the program, which is supposed to be developed and implemented by the team.
The program is to include the “tone-setting” aspects (code of ethics, training, preventive measures) as well as proactive and reactive activities, which should allow it to succeed in achieving multiple aims: determine a company’s needs, detect fraud, provide the tools for analysis, prioritization, and mitigation, provide the instructions for fraud-related activities, and develop the means for monitoring them. Also, a good program uses and shares the best practices in the field but remains customized to the needs of the company. The program needs to be implemented and embedded into the organizational practice; in particular, the setting tone elements need to be integrated into the culture of the organization through regular and extensive training, proactive methods should take into account the psychology of fraud, and reactive methods must focus on a timely response. The final element of Torpey’s model that is likely to demand particular attention is the communication, and the solution of this issue for the anti-fraud program is also likely to improve organizational communication in general.
According to Torpey, this system of measures will improve the effectiveness of a company’s anti-fraud program, which will make it more trustworthy and believable and help it to live up to the company’s expectations (par. 12, 60).
Works Cited
Torpey, Dan. “Who Owns Fraud?” Fraud Magazine 26.1 (2011): n.pag. Fraud Magazine Archive. Web.