Findings

View the most recent version.

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.

Archived

This page has been archived on the Web.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]85-571-x[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]

About half of retail and insurance business establishmentsexperienced some type of fraud in the previous year ¹ 

In all, about half of retail and insurance business establishments experienced some type of fraud in the 12-month fiscal period preceding the survey. ²  Specifically, 57% of retailers and 45% ³  of insurance establishments had suffered some type of fraudulent activity in the previous fiscal year (Chart 1). Similar patterns in prevalence were found among small (5 to 19 employees), medium (20 to 49 employees) and large (50 or more employees) establishments, alike.

For the banking industry, information on the number and types of fraud incidents experienced in the previous 12-month period was available for about 29% of individual establishments and thus, was unavailable for a significant proportion (71%) of banking institutions in Canada. Most of those establishments for which fraud information was not available were part of the larger banking institutions in the country.

However, among the individual banking establishments that did provide information on fraud experienced in the previous 12 months, about 84% were the victims of fraudulent activity during that time-period (Chart 1).

Frauds committed by individuals other than employees were more likely to strike business establishments (47%) than employee-perpetrated frauds (15%) such as embezzlement. In particular, about 53% of individual retailers, 44% of individual insurance establishments and 83% of individual banking establishments ⁴  had fallen victim to non-employee frauds during the previous year, while less prevalent employee frauds were experienced by about 19% of retail establishments, 3% of insurance establishments and 5% of banks ⁵  (Chart 1).

The most common types of fraud vary from industry to industry

Frauds perpetrated against businesses assume a variety of forms, from the use of fake or fraudulently obtained credit cards or debit cards to mortgage fraud and false insurance claims.

Given the differences in the nature and functioning of businesses across various industries, certain types of fraud will, necessarily, be more or less prevalent within certain industrial sectors. For example, unlike in the insurance industry, the retail and banking industries experience high volumes of cash transactions, thus making incidents of fraud involving counterfeit money a potential problem for establishments in these latter two industries. Similarly, return fraud is likely to be particular to the retail industry, mortgage fraud to the banking industry and claims fraud to the insurance industry.

Fraudulent returns the most common frauds committed againstretail business establishments

In 2008, return fraud was the most common type of fraud reported by retail business establishments, making up almost one-third (32%) of all fraudulent incidents perpetrated against retailers by employees and non-employees, according to the SFAB (Table 1). Next most frequent were credit card frauds and the use of counterfeit money, each accounting for 15% of retail fraud in 2008. Incidents where employees fraudulently acquired monetary or other assets from the company were the most prevalent type of employee fraud, representing 14% of all frauds reported by individual retail establishments in 2008.

Debit card fraud the most prevalent type of fraudulent activityaffecting banking establishments ⁶ 

Among the individual banking establishments able to provide information on fraud experienced in the previous 12 months, debit card fraud was more common than any other type of fraud. The fraudulent use of debit cards accounted for half of all banking frauds reported to the SFAB and together with cheque fraud (29% ⁷ ) and worthless deposits to automatic tellers (10%) accounted for nearly 90% of the frauds committed against these banking establishments (Table 1).

False or inflated claims made up more than three-quartersof frauds committed against individual insurance establishments

More than three-quarters (77%) of fraud against individual insurance establishments involved false or inflated claims. Of the remaining incidents, most involved false billing schemes or other types of non-employee fraud against property insurance establishments (Table 1). ⁸ 

Fraudsters typically carry out their crimes in person

Whether it is in person, by telephone, post, fax, email or through the Internet, fraudsters can utilize various methods to execute their crime. When questioned about the most common methods used to perpetrate acts of fraud, overall, nearly two-thirds (63%) of establishments reported that 'in-person' methods were the most common means used to carry out the frauds committed against them. ⁹ 

Specifically, 7 in 10 individual retail establishments and about half (52%) of banking establishments ¹⁰  that had experienced fraud or were the victims of an attempted fraud in the past year, indicated that these fraudulent acts were most often carried out 'in-person' by those committing the fraud.

Still, there were some noteworthy variations by industry in the most frequently used means for executing business frauds. For example, unlike business establishments in the retail and banking sectors, insurance establishments reported that regular mail (32%) was the most common method used to defraud their establishments. Also, in addition to in-person frauds, a notable proportion of individual banks reported that the Internet (23%) and email (17%) were the top methods utilized in acts of fraud they had experienced. ¹¹ 

Nearly half of retailers and insurance establishments neveror rarely contact police when fraud detected

Previous research suggests that fraud, like many crimes, is under-reported (Statistics Canada, 2006; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2005; Smith, 1999). Findings from the SFAB lend further support to this assertion, particularly for businesses in the retail and insurance industries. While it was the case for 4% of banking establishments, nearly half of retail and insurance establishments (regardless of whether or not they had experienced fraud in the previous 12-month fiscal period), said that in general, they never or only rarely notify law enforcement in cases of fraud. Therefore, official police-reported statistics likely under-estimate criminal frauds against these types of businesses.

Previous research suggests that there may be a variety of reasons businesses choose not to report fraud to police. For example, they may fear jeopardizing their reputation; they may feel that reporting fraud will require too many resources relative to the size of the loss; or they may accept the occasional fraud as simply part of doing business (Smith, 1999). As well, businesses may deal with fraud through other means, such as relying on internal or private investigators to investigate fraud, or reporting fraud to authorities other than law enforcement (e.g., PhoneBusters, Better Business Bureau, Competition Bureau, Investigative Services of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's RECOL (Reporting Economic Crime On-Line)).

According to the SFAB, the most common reasons for business establishments not to report incidents of fraud to law enforcement is because they feel the fraud is too minor to warrant involving police or that the police will not be able to do anything about the situation.

Fraud losses often considered too minor to warrant contactingpolice

Specifically, among all retail establishments, nearly half (47%) indicated that, as a general rule, they never or rarely inform police when fraudulent activity occurs (Chart 2). The most commonly cited reason by retailers (56%) for not informing the police was because the incident was considered too minor to involve law enforcement (Table 2).

Still, more than one-third (34%) of retail business establishments always or often report incidents of fraud to police. According to SFAB findings, police are more likely to be notified when losses are substantial. Retailers' most common reasons for contacting police in cases of fraud were because the fraud-related losses were significant (61%) and because they wanted to recover their losses (58%) (Table 2).

A notable proportion of retail business establishments (48%) also indicated that company policy requires them to inform police when fraudulent activities are detected. However, contacting the police was more common among larger retail establishments than among smaller ones. Specifically, 15% of small retail business establishments (5 to 19 employees) indicated that it was their practice to always report fraud to police, compared to 24% of medium-sized establishments (20 to 49 employees), and 37% of large establishments (50 or more employees).

Most individual banking establishments report fraud incidentsto police

When individual banking establishments experience fraud it is likely that the crime will be reported to police. Among all banking establishments, almost 6 in 10 indicated that police are called often and an additional 4% stated that they always call police when fraud is detected. Relatively few banking establishments stated that police are never called (1%) or called rarely (3%) to report fraudulent activities (Chart 2).

Findings from the SFAB suggest that the vast majority of banks typically base their decision to notify police on the seriousness of the fraudulent incident. Specifically, of all individual banking establishments, about 9 in 10 each stated that police are notified when frauds involve substantial losses; where links to organized crime are suspected; and when they intend to pursue criminal charges (Table 2). The most common reason given by banking establishments (84%) for why fraudulent activities are not reported to police was because the fraud is considered too minor to warrant alerting law enforcement.

Nearly half of all individual insurance establishments saidpolice are rarely or never informed of frauds

Nearly half (46%) of all individual health and property insurance establishments indicated that police are never or rarely contacted in cases of fraud, while 36% said that they do so on occasion (Chart 2).

Overall, among the most common reasons given by insurance establishments for not contacting police were because the incident was too minor (34%) and because it was handled in some other way (33%) (Table 2).

Fewer than 20% of all individual insurance establishments said that police are informed often or always. When insurance establishments do report incidents of fraud to police, it is most likely in cases where the losses are considered sizable enough to warrant involving law enforcement (76%). The intention to pursue criminal charges was the next reason most commonly identified by insurance establishments for informing police of fraud (57%). ¹² 

Other authorities are notified of fraud less often than policebut PhoneBusters and RECOL are the most likely choices

In addition to police, there are other authorities and regulatory bodies to which businesses may report cases of fraud, such as PhoneBusters (Canadian Anti-Fraud Call Centre), provincial consumer protection agencies, Better Business Bureau, Competition Bureau, Investigative Services of the Insurance Bureau of Canada, FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's RECOL (Reporting Economic Crime On-Line), and Canada Post.

In general, authorities such as the abovementioned may offer businesses recommendations on the appropriate law enforcement or regulatory agency to contact for investigation into possible frauds; provide information or support directly to law enforcement and regulatory or intelligence agencies investigating fraudulent activities; or offer information, education and awareness on frauds and fraudulent schemes affecting specific industries.

Businesses may or may not report fraud to these authorities in addition to making formal reports to police. However, the proportion of business establishments reporting fraud to at least one of these other authorities was generally lower, when compared to the frequency with which establishments said they always or often reported fraud to police. Overall, Phonebusters and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police's RECOL tended to be among the most frequently cited authorities, but this tendency varied somewhat by industry.

For instance, when individual retail establishments reported fraud to authorities other than law enforcement, most often they told PhoneBusters and the RCMP's RECOL about the crimes. Still, fewer than 1 in 5 retail establishments who had experienced fraud indicated that they had reported the fraudulent activity to either of these authorities during the previous 12-month fiscal period. In comparison, about 1 in 3 stated they always or often reported fraud to police. ¹³ 

While a majority of banking establishments typically report fraud to police, a notable proportion also turn to other authorities for assistance. Specifically, about one-third (34%) of individual banking establishments had reported fraud to FINTRAC over the previous 12-month fiscal period. ¹⁴  Additionally, 18% of banking establishments with substantiated or attempted frauds to report called upon other regulatory bodies not specified on the SFAB for help.

Insurance establishments most often reported fraud to Phonebusters, followed by the Investigative Services of the Insurance Bureau of Canada and RECOL. ¹⁵ 

Civil courts not a usual means for resolving incidents offraud

In order to recover losses, businesses may pursue incidents of fraud in civil court. However, throughout the retail, banking and insurance industries, most businesses do not frequently turn to the civil courts to resolve incidents of fraud.

Resolving fraud cases in civil court was particularly uncommon in the retail and insurance industries. More than half (52%) of retail establishments reported that they never pursue fraud cases in civil court and a further 34% do so rarely. Likewise, close to two-thirds of insurance establishments said that they never (29%) or only rarely (33%) turned to the civil courts to resolve frauds.

For banking establishments, about one-third indicated that they rarely or never pursued fraud cases through the civil courts. Yet, nearly half of bank establishments did state that they occasionally seek the help of civil courts to resolve incidents of fraud.

Business establishments in the retail, banking and insuranceindustries all experienced monetary and non-monetary costs of fraud

Fraud can result in substantial costs to businesses. These costs come in the form of dollars lost as a direct result of the fraudulent acts, as well as indirect costs such as those associated with court proceedings and additional investments in prevention and detection strategies. In addition, incidents of fraud may produce non-monetary impacts which are often overlooked, such as damage to business and client relationships, staff morale, and the reputation of the business (Australian Institute of Criminology, 2004).

Across the retail, banking and insurance industries, a majority of the business establishments that were victims of fraud suffered direct losses. In addition, notable proportions also reported experiencing non-monetary consequences of fraud such as impacts on their business procedures and staff morale.

Specifically in the retail industry, about 80% of business establishments that had been victims of fraud in the previous 12 months reported suffering monetary losses due directly to the frauds committed against them. ¹⁶ 

More specifically among retail establishments indicating losses, while a large majority (89%) experienced losses of $20,000 or less, still, about 5% lost between $20,000 and $60,000, 4% reported estimated losses ranging from more than $60,000 to $100,000, and 2% had losses exceeding $100,000 (Chart 3).

Fraud victimization also carried non-monetary consequences for many retail establishments. Most often the impacts of recent incidents of fraud were seen on retail establishments' policies and procedures (44%) followed by staff morale (26%) and client relationships (21%).

For the proportion of individual banking establishments providing information on fraud victimization in the previous 12 months, a large majority (80%) of fraud victims experienced some financial loss as a direct result of the frauds perpetrated against them. ¹⁷ 

Among the banking establishments reporting fraud-related losses, while most (91%) indicated that their direct losses did not exceed $20,000, 7% had estimated losses between $20,000 and $60,000, 1% had lost between $60,000 and $100,000 and another 1% reported losing between $100,000 and $1 million (Chart 3).

A number of banking establishments also experienced fraud's non-monetary consequences as well. In particular, 39% of banking establishments reported that recent incidents of fraud had had an impact on their business procedures and 29% reported an effect on client relationships. Impacts on clients' or other businesses' openness to on-line transactions (15%) and staff morale (13%) were reported by smaller proportions of banking establishments that had been victimized by fraud in the previous year. ¹⁸ 

Nearly 7 in 10 of the individual insurance establishments experiencing fraud in the previous fiscal year incurred monetary losses as a direct consequence of these fraudulent acts. ¹⁹  However, due to small numbers, more detailed information on the amounts lost due to fraud are unavailable for businesses in the insurance industry. ²⁰ 

In terms of non-monetary costs, fraud most frequently affected insurance establishments' business practices and procedures (65%) followed by their client relationships (61% ²¹ ). An impact on staff morale was also mentioned by about 4 in 10 establishments. ²² 

Strategies for detecting fraud key to keeping fraud costsdown

The more steps businesses take to control and uncover fraud, the greater their chances of detecting fraudulent activities and the better their ability to assess the effectiveness of their anti-fraud strategies. Thus, strategies for detecting and preventing fraud are key mechanisms in keeping the costs, direct and indirect, of fraud down (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007). Still, even with a sound anti-fraud system in place, some businesses may find the time and resources required to recoup financial losses are too prohibitive or impractical to actually take such steps (PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007).

Overall, about two-thirds of business establishments across the retail, banking and insurance industries reported avoiding fraud-related losses or recovering at least some money as a result of their organization's fraud prevention measures.

Among retail establishments that had experienced fraud during the previous fiscal year, more than half (56%) reported recovering fraud-related losses as a result of detecting fraudulent activity. ²³  In most cases (94%) where anti-fraud strategies resulted in the recovery or avoidance of monetary losses, the amount recovered or saved was estimated to be $20,000 or less.

Uncovering fraud also helped save many in the banking industry from suffering monetary losses, with nearly three-quarters of banking establishments (73%) victimized by fraud in the previous 12-month fiscal period recouping or avoiding losses through fraud detection efforts. ²⁴  Again, a sizable majority (82%) of these recoveries or avoided losses were in an amount that did not exceed $20,000.

About 7 in 10 individual insurance establishments (72%) that had suffered fraud in the previous year were able to avoid or reduce fraud-related losses through detection. As well, compared to establishments in the retail and banking industries, those in the insurance industry more frequently reported higher amounts for recoveries. ²⁵  Among the insurance establishments reporting recovering or avoiding fraud-related losses, nearly half recovered or avoided losing between $20,000 and $300,000 through the use of anti-fraud initiatives. ²⁶ 

The extent to which business establishments were able to recoup specifically the monies lost as a direct result of frauds committed against them in the previous 12-months cannot be determined from the information collected on the SFAB. Rather, business establishments were asked, more generally, to provide the amount of financial losses they were able recover or avoid losing as a result of detecting fraud. Therefore, it is not certain whether the amounts reported represent losses that were actually recovered, monies that they avoided losing, or both.

About 8 business establishments in 10 reliedon fraud detection techniques to identify fraudulent activities

Internal investigators, external audits, risk management systems, detection technology and reporting by staff are among the many methods businesses can use to detect fraud. Overall, about 8 business establishments in 10 relied on some type of fraud detection technique to uncover fraudulent activities.

For the most part, the use of fraud detection methods was more common among large (50 or more employees) and medium-sized (20 to 49 employees) business establishments than among small business establishments with 5 to 19 employees. In particular though, large establishments used internal (63%) and external (28%) audits as well as detection technology (59%) to identify fraud more frequently than small establishments (52% of which used internal audits, 17% external audits and 48% detection technology).

Many business establishments rely on employees and internalaudits to detect fraud

While employees were among the most commonly used resources of fraud detection, reported by 80% of businesses reporting on the SFAB, about 6 in 10 businesses also relied on information provided by others such as the public, clients and customers to help detect fraud. While strategies for uncovering fraud cannot guarantee that all frauds will be discovered, they can increase businesses' opportunities for fraud detection, loss prevention and recovery.

The most common methods of detecting fraud among retail establishments were through staff (75%) followed by reporting from clients, customers or business associates (52%) and internal audits (46%) (Table 3). About one-third of retail business establishments used detection technologies and a similar proportion discovered fraud by accident.

Of the three industries, those in the banking sector used fraud detection strategies with the greatest frequency. According to the SFAB, 96% of all banking establishments reported detection by staff as a method of fraud detection, and like other industries, this was the most commonly mentioned means of uncovering fraud (Table 3). However, risk management systems; reports by clients, customers or business associates; detection technologies; and internal investigators were also each used by about 9 in 10 banking establishments to detect fraudulent activities.

More than 8 in 10 insurance establishments indicated that they turned to staff for identifying fraudulent activity, making it the most frequently named source of fraud detection for this industry as well (Table 3). Reporting by the public, clients, customers and/or business associates (68%), accidental discovery (56%) and internal audits (52%) were also common methods of detecting fraud among insurance establishments. ²⁷ 

Some business establishments that had experienced fraud weremore likely than those that had not to use certain fraud detection measures

Business establishments, particularly those in the retail sector, that reported experiencing some type of fraud in the past 12-month fiscal period were generally more likely to have reported using measures of fraud detection (particularly the use of detection technology and reporting by staff) than those who had not fallen victim to fraud during this time frame. While it is possible that businesses with more fraud may be more inclined to implement detection measures, this finding may also suggest that where detection practices are absent, some fraud may remain hidden.

For banking establishments, those that had been the victims of fraud in the previous 12-months were more likely than those who had not been so victimized to use detection technologies to identify fraud. However, non-victims were more likely to rely on audits and reporting by staff.

Training and awareness for employees and managers are partof the fraud prevention measures used by a majority of businesses

Employees and managers figure prominently in the fraud prevention measures taken by many businesses. On average, nearly 9 in 10 business establishments utilized some measure of fraud prevention, with a preponderance of businesses from all industries identifying employee and manager training and awareness as components of their fraud prevention strategy. However, each industry also had other techniques they tended to utilize (Table 4).

A notable majority of retail establishments (81%) identified formal or informal training and raising awareness among employees as techniques used by their business to prevent fraud, and nearly two-thirds (63%) indicated that manager training and awareness were also part of their prevention strategy. In addition, about half of retail business establishments conducted daily financial reviews and reconciliations, and destroyed or secured documents containing personal information in order to thwart fraud (Table 4).

Almost all banking establishments (99%) implemented employee training and education as a part of their fraud prevention strategy. Additionally, more than 9 in 10 banking establishments indicated that each of the following measures were in place to help stop or deter fraud: pre-employment screening; secure electronic databases; an organizational code of conduct pertaining to fraud; training for management; as well as procedures for destroying or disposing of files containing personal information (i.e., account information, social insurance numbers, etc.) (Table 4).

For the insurance industry, 85% of the individual companies listed employee training and awareness among their fraud prevention techniques and more than three-quarters (77%) included training and education of managers. In addition, each of the following measures were taken by about three-quarters of insurance establishments as a means to combat fraud: required signing procedures for the release or transfer of funds; the securing of electronic databases; the destruction or securing of documents containing personal information, and their organization's code of conduct regarding fraud (Table 4).

The use of fraud prevention measures varies by the size ofthe business establishment

Overall, large business establishments, those with 50 or more employees, were more likely to use fraud prevention measures than small business establishments (5 to 19 employees), but this was particularly the case for certain types of prevention methods.

For example, more than three-quarters (76%) of large business establishments, compared to 45% of small establishments reported using pre-employment screening as a means to prevent fraud. Similarly, 87% of large establishments counted the use of management training, 54% background checks on clients and 44% publicizing their fraud detection measures among their strategies to prevent fraud. In comparison, small establishments reported using the same methods less often, 69%, 35% and 20%, respectively.

Summary

About half of retail and insurance business establishments and a notable majority of banking establishments surveyed experienced some type of fraud in the last year. Fraudulent returns was the most frequent type of fraud reported by retail establishments, banking establishments most often experienced debit card fraud, while most frauds committed against individual insurance establishments involved false or fraudulent claims.

The extent to which businesses report these crimes to police varies. The reasons for informing police when a fraud has occurred typically hinge on the seriousness of the incident, particularly the size of the loss associated with it. Overall, more than one-third of all individual business establishments reporting on the SFAB indicated that they rarely, if ever, notify the police when fraudulent activity is detected.

There were also variations in the tendency to report fraud to police among the industries. For example, almost half of retail business establishments and insurance establishments reported that police are rarely or never called when a fraud against their business is detected compared to only 4% of banking establishments.

About 80% of the retail and banking establishments and nearly 7 in 10 of the individual insurance establishments victimized by fraud suffered direct financial losses as a consequence of the fraud. In addition, many businesses also reported non-monetary consequences stemming from their recent experiences with fraud. In terms of estimated monetary costs due directly to fraud, most retail and banking establishments reported estimated losses of $20,000 or less.

Staff play an important role in fraud detection and prevention among businesses in the retail, banking and insurance industries. Some business establishments, particularly those in the retail sector, that had been victims of fraud were more likely to report that they used measures of detection than those who had not, suggesting that some fraud may go undetected in the absence of such measures.