Workplace Fraud on the Rise - While Profits Slip Out the Back Door

November 11-17 is International Fraud Awareness Week

By Hetherington Group

Published: Wednesday, Nov. 7, 2012 - 5:43 am

WAYNE, N.J., Nov. 7, 2012 -- /PRNewswire/ -- Organizations around the world — both large corporations as well as small businesses — lose an estimated 5% of annual revenues to fraudulent activities, according to a study conducted by the Association of Certified Examiners (ACFE) with 42% of fraudsters being employees, 38% managers and 18% owner/executives. A great majority of this fraudulent activity occurs within the 23 million small businesses in the United States that account for 54% of all U.S. sales and provide 55% of all jobs.

"That's a good deal of manpower and finance in the hands of companies with less than 500 employees," comments Cynthia Hetherington, MLS, MSM, CFE, founder and president of the Hetherington Group (www.hetheringtongroup.com).  "Small businesses in particular are extremely susceptible to employee fraud as they often lack the anti-fraud controls or policies found in larger organizations."

November 11-17 is International Fraud Awareness Week and the Hetherington Group is urging businesses to take steps to minimize the impact of fraud by evaluating their employee screening process and by implementing anti-fraud policies and controls.  The Hetherington Group offers the following tips:

• Small companies seldom bother with a background check on new employees, potentially inviting hackers, predators, and even convicted felons into the organization. Conduct a thorough background check that goes back over the past seven years on all employees before hiring to see if there is a criminal history.
  
• With a signed release, check their credit report for any fiscal irresponsibility.  During an economic crisis it's ok to have some financial stresses, but you wouldn't want your comptroller to be filing for bankruptcy.
  
• Once the employee is being considered for hire, review their social networks for any items damaging to reputation, especially any past animosity against their former employer.
  
• Institute an employee policy that outlines expected employee behavior anytime they are representing the company, including any mention on their social networks.

Institute anti-fraud controls to monitor all employee activity including:

• Internal and external audits
• Management reviews and independent audit committees
• Fraud training for management and employees
• Mandatory vacation and job rotation
• Hotline/tip line and rewards for whistleblowers

"Fraud detection and prevention should be an ongoing initiative," Hetherington continues, "and International Fraud Awareness Week offers a great opportunity for businesses to become aware and develop and review policies and controls to fight fraud and safeguard their livelihood from this continually growing problem."

About Cynthia Hetherington, MLS, MSM, CFE:
Cynthia Hetherington, MLS, MSM, CFE has more than 18 years of experience in research, investigations, and corporate intelligence. She is the founder of Hetherington Group, a consulting, publishing, and training firm focusing on intelligence, security, and investigations. Cynthia is also the ACFE James Baker "Speaker of the Year" Award Recipient 2012.

Cynthia applies her expertise in library science and information systems to provide clients with strategic insight into research and complex investigations. During her career, she has assisted a vast number of clients with Internet investigations related to employee theft and intellectual property loss.

Cynthia has also applied her research skills while conducting online and database research to uncover well-hidden relations between fraudulent associates, their assets, and their secrets. She has experience overseeing international investigations for Fortune 500 companies and other organizations in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia.

A widely published author, Cynthia authored Business Background Investigations (2007) and the Manual to Online Public Records (2008), published by Facts on Demand Press as well as co-authoring Web of Deceit: Misinformation and Manipulation in the Age of Social Media (2012) by Information Today. She is the publisher of Data2know.com: Internet & Online Intelligence Newsletter and has authored articles on steganography, computer forensics, Internet investigations, and other security-focused monographs.

Cynthia is also recognized for providing corporate security officials; military intelligence units; and federal, state, and local agencies with training on online intelligence practices. Cynthia's classes are ACFE, NASBA, DHS and ASIS approved for continuing professional education credits.
Contact:  Irene Maslowski, 973-226-1494 or Irene@imassocpr.com

This press release was issued through eReleases® Press Release Distribution. For more information, visit http://www.ereleases.com.
SOURCE Hetherington Group

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/11/07/4967274/workplace-fraud-on-the-rise-while.html#storylink=cpy

A Week Dedicated to Fraud Awareness, Detection & Prevention

It's finally here! More than 700 businesses, agencies and other entities worldwide are shining a spotlight on fraud this week, Nov. 11-17, 2012 to help promote awareness, detection and prevention. Fraud awareness is critical at a time when organizations around the world lose an estimated 5 percent of their annual revenues to fraud, according to a survey of fraud experts conducted by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE). International Fraud Awareness Week encourages business leaders and employees to proactively take steps to minimize the impact of fraud by promoting anti-fraud awareness and education.

 http://www.fraudweek.com/

Interview Before Interrogating

Throughout our seminars and textbooks The Reid Technique emphasizes the distinction between interviewing and interrogating, and the importance of conducting a non-accusatory interview before an accusatory interrogation. A recent legal decision reinforces this lesson:

A food court cashier rang up a customer's purchases for several food items, but the customer did not have sufficient cash to pay for the purchase, so the cashier voided the transaction. The customer went to a service counter inside the store to pay the difference with a credit card and returned to the cashier, displayed his credit card receipt, and paid for the remaining items in cash. Surveillance cameras appeared to show the cashier accepting $31 in cash, but voiding out the sale.

Three days later the cashier was summoned to the manager's office and aggressively accused of stealing thirty-one dollars from the store (the amount of the voided transaction). The accusatory interrogation, involving three loss prevention staff who threatened the cashier with possible arrest, lasted for two hours before the emotionally distressed employee stomped out of the room. The cashier was suspended for three days for "acts of dishonesty."

When the cashier returned to work she was informed that further investigation cleared her of any wrong-doing, but by then the damage had been done. She sued her employer for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealings, slander, false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Had it not been for a delayed filing in this case, the outcome could have resulted in substantial damages against the employer and/or investigators.

In Hollywood the typical police "interrogation" consists of asking the suspect two or three questions, catching the suspect in a known or presumed lie and going in for the kill by accusing the suspect of committing the crime. Especially when a suspect has been caught lying or in a web of circumstantial evidence it is tempting to get the quick confession by skipping the interview and moving directly into an interrogation. However, in almost all instances, an interrogation should be preceded by a non-accusatory interview. In addition to avoiding the situation in which an innocent person is interrogated, the following are other benefits of conducting a non-accusatory interview prior to any interrogation.


Develop Rapport

A suspect's impression of an investigator will be formed within 15 - 20 seconds of meeting the investigator. That initial reaction will, in turn, influence whether or not a rapport will be established between the investigator and the suspect. To persuade a suspect to tell the truth during an interrogation requires that the suspect trust the investigator and perceive the investigator as an objective, non-judgmental person.

This rapport cannot be developed in a relationship initiated by an accusation of guilt followed by a monologue in which the investigator dominates the conversation. In other words, rapport cannot be established during an interrogation. It can only be established during a non-accusatory interview during which the investigator is perceived as an objective, non-judgmental fact-finder and the suspect does most of the talking.
Develop Investigative Information

Because an interview is non-accusatory, a suspect is much more likely to reveal opportunity and access to commit the crime, a motive to commit the crime and even psychological propensity to engage in criminal behaviour. However, once a suspect is accused of involvement in criminal activity, he perceives the relationship between himself and the investigator as adversarial. His defensive response will be to deny any information that may connect him to the crime under investigation. An investigator is much more likely to learn the truth from a suspect during an interrogation if the suspect has acknowledged opportunity, access, motive and propensity to commit the crime.

Furthermore, when accused of wrong-doing, the tendency to deny opportunity, access, motive and propensity occurs within both innocent and guilty suspects. Consequently, when a suspect lies about having a prior conviction during an interrogation, this represents a less significant indicator of guilt than when the suspect tells the same lie during a non-accusatory interview.

Another significant benefit of conducting an interview prior to an interrogation is that the suspect is allowed an opportunity to offer an explanation for incriminating evidence and to provide an alibi, if he has one. The investigator may have an opportunity, through a phone call or record check, to confirm or refute the information provided by the suspect. If the information does not check out, this will clearly offer the investigator valuable ammunition during the interrogation.


Develop Behavioural Information

Suspects are very good at identifying an investigator's level of confidence during an interrogation. Most suspects can tell if an investigator is bluffing about possessing evidence or speaking truthfully. Consequently, the investigator who is perceived by the suspect as confident in his position and statements is much more likely to walk out of the interrogation learning the truth. This is a significant reason why polygraph examiners have high confession rates - they have observed the suspect's "deceptive responses" on the polygraph charts. Similarly, investigators who have actual evidence of a suspect's guilt are often successful at learning the truth during an interrogation. The reason for this is that in both instances, the investigator conducts the interrogation with almost certainty of the suspect's guilt.

The asking of behaviour-provoking questions during an interview can result in the same effect. When a suspect answers the majority of behaviour-provoking questions in a manner typical of a deceptive individual, the investigator has increased confidence in the suspect's guilt during the interrogation.

Finally, an investigator may develop information about the suspect's background, such as a prior conviction, or that the day after the crime the suspect paid his landlord two months back rent in cash. Armed with this insight, the investigator can ask the suspect questions during the interview to which the answer is already known, e.g., "Have you ever been convicted of a crime?"; "Have you made any large cash payments in the last week?" An innocent person will typically tell the truth to these questions. However, if the suspect lies to those questions the investigator will have increased confidence in the suspect's probable guilt during a subsequent interrogation.

In conclusion, the interview is an integral part of the subsequent interrogation. It allows the investigator to establish rapport with the suspect. The suspect is much more likely to offer investigative information during the interview, and the investigator can develop behavioural information during the interview which will increase his confidence in the suspect's guilt later during the interrogation. Finally, the interview allows the suspect to offer explanations for apparent incriminating evidence or provide an alibi which can be verified (or refuted). The lawsuit mentioned at the beginning of this article could have been completely avoided had the investigators first interviewed the employee.

Credit and Permission Statement: This Investigator Tip was developed by John E. Reid and Associates Inc. Permission is hereby granted to those who wish to share or copy the article. For additional 'tips' visit www.reid.com; select 'Educational Information' and 'Investigator Tip'. Inquiries regarding Investigator Tips should be directed to Janet Finnerty johnreid@htc.net. For more information regarding Reid seminars and training products, contact John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. at 800-255-5747 or www.reid.com.

For interviewing and interrogation techniques training in Canada you may also contact The Canadian Tactical Training Academy www.ctta-global.com, Tel: 514-373-8411

Spy Agency’s New Ottawa Compound To Include Hiking Trails, Basketball Courts

There's an old saying that goes: 'if you want the truth, follow the money.'

Well, if you want to know where the Harper government's priorities lie, follow the taxpayer money trail.

The Ottawa Citizen is reporting new information about Canada's electronic spy agency's $880 million 775,000 square foot facility currently being built in the Ottawa suburb of Gloucester.

Internal documents obtained by the newspaper show that the new Communications Security Establishment Canada compound — set to open in 2014 — will include basketball and volleyball courts, a bank, a 400-seat conference centre, a library and onsite hiking trails, all in an attempt to attract the "best and brightest" workforce.

But don't worry: the originally planned hockey rink and hobby garden have apparently been taken off the drawing board.

The Citizen also notes that the government has labelled the building "Camelot" while union officials have dubbed it the "Taj Mahal."

Whatever it's called, it's lavish and expensive and it's being built at a time when other government departments are being expected to cut costs.

CSEC, which uses technology to hear what people are saying abroad, now has a budget of about $350 million a year and has doubled in size since 2001. Moreover, while other government departments faced cuts of up to 10 per cent in Budget 2012, CSEC escaped with only a 2 per cent slice.

It's a similar story at Canada's more high profile spy agency.

According to Rabble.ca, Canadian Security Intelligence Service funding has increased by 160 per cent, from less than $200 million in 2001 to $511 million in 2010. And, in 2012, the Harper government only cut 1.5 per cent of CSIS's half-billion dollar annual budget.

The Camelot/Taj Mahal along with the sustained spending are a clear indicators that the Harper government is serious about boosting their spy capabilities.

At a time when security and intelligence issues loom large with regards to arctic sovereignty, corporate espionage and continued terrorist threats, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

By Andy Radia | Canada Politics

Amazing Mind Reader Reveals His 'GIFT'

Interviewing Witnesses

A witness is anyone who possesses direct information pertinent to an investigation. Sometimes witnesses are forthcoming and fully cooperative, other times they are reluctant to get involved and occasionally they are deceitful in an effort to protect themselves, an accomplice or loved one. There are many factors that may influence the accuracy of a witness' statement including trauma, passage of time, prejudices, influences of drugs or alcohol, age, and psychological/ physiological disorders. Finally, witnesses are interviewed in a number of different settings, ranging from a totally uncontrolled setting (outside a bank that was just robbed) to a semi-controlled environment (the witness' home or office) or in a controlled setting (the investigator's office).

With all these variables, obviously there is no single best technique to develop information from a witness. Consequently, this web tip will present a number of different concepts relating to witness interviews which the investigator will need to appropriately apply. There is, however, a single underlying principle: the more time the investigator spends talking to the witness, the more information will be learned. Regardless of how cooperative a witness may be, the investigator should never accept a witness's first version of an event as final and complete. A witness rarely initially volunteers all the information he or she possesses; the investigator must draw it out by asking follow-up questions and perhaps even consider using memory-enhancing techniques.

1. Identifying a good witness. Consider that a pedestrian was struck by a car when crossing the street. By the time the police officer arrives on the scene, ten individuals have congregated around the accident. The officer may be tempted to approach a person in the crowd and ask, "Did you see what happened?" This direct approach to locate a witness is likely to produce a response such as, "I can't help you. I just got here."
   
   The officer would be much more productive in identifying a knowledgeable witness by initially asking an individual in the crowd, "Do you know who may have seen this happen?" This question is likely to produce a response such as, "That woman over there was here when I arrived and by the way she's acting it looks like she saw the whole thing." Armed with this insight, the officer could approach the identified woman and state, "Ma'am, I understand that you were here when this happened. Would you help me out by telling me what you saw and heard?"
   
   It may also be beneficial to observe the behavior of potential witnesses in a crowd to identify a person who is likely to possess information and be willing to share it. The individual may appear animated in discussing the incident with those around them, appear approachable by exhibiting an open posture and a friendly facial expression. When the investigator attempts to make eye contact the willing witness may turn toward the investigator and return mutual gaze.
2. Interview multiple witnesses separate from each other. Consider that three people witnessed the same fight in a bar. If the investigator approaches them and asks, "What did you see?" one witness is likely to do most of the talking while the other two nod in agreement. Three individuals can witness the exact same event but their recollections of the event may differ slightly. To account for individual differences, it is important that the investigator conduct three separate interviews. This technique is also useful to identify possible biases or omissions within a particular witness' statement.
3. Create the most private environment possible for the interview. Almost every witness statement attributes blame to someone or something for the observed event. Psychologically, pointing a finger at a responsible person is difficult for most individuals. This difficulty increases substantially when a witness' statement incriminates a friend, family member or accomplice. To ease the psychological burden of implicating others, the investigator must afford the witness privacy.
   
   Once a witness is selected from a crowd it would be appropriate to escort the witness 15 or 20 feet from the crowd before asking questions about the occurrence. In some situations, it may be appropriate to place the accused person in custody in the back seat of a squad car and then privately question the witness out of the accused person's presence. There may be instances where the witness' statements will be so critical to the successful prosecution of the guilty that the investigator may choose to interview the witness in the confines of an interview room in a law enforcement center. Regardless of the circumstance, the important message is that once a witness is located the investigator should do whatever is possible to afford the witness privacy before expecting that person to provide accurate and meaningful information.
4. Do not elicit personal information from the witness (full name, address, telephone number) early during an interview. The reason many witnesses are reluctant to offer information is the fear of getting involved in the legal system (testifying in court, being named as a source of information to obtain an arrest warrant, etc.) Consequently, once an investigator identifies that a person may have information pertinent to an investigation, the information should be elicited in a casual manor, e.g., "Good evening sir. I'm a police officer investigating this incident. Can you tell me what happened?" Only after the witness has provided the desired information should the investigator elicit personal information.
   
   For much the same reason, the investigator should refrain from taking written notes early during the interview. Not only does note-taking remind the witness of the permanency of the statement, but it can be a distraction and affect the natural flow of information. Once the witness has made a complete oral statement the investigator can pull out a pen and paper and document what was said.
5. Introduce each area of the interview with an open question. Research and empirical observations clearly indicate that the most effective technique to develop full and accurate information from a witness is to start with a broad question, e.g. "Please describe the car for me" than to ask a series of closed-ended questions, e.g. "What color was the car?"; "Was is a van or sedan?" How old do you think the car was?"
   
   When asking an open question the investigator should not influence the witness' statement by making assumptions within the question. Witnesses are often nervous when talking to an authority figure and may be eager to please the investigator by saying what they think the investigator wants to hear (or already knows). Consider that a woman heard a loud noise coming from the liquor store across the street and saw a person run out of the store following the sound. As it turns out, the liquor store was just robbed and the clerk was shot dead. It is improper to ask this witness "Describe the man who robbed the liquor store" because the question assumes that the robber was a man and that the person being described is the person who robbed the liquor store. Rather, the investigator should ask "Describe the person you saw leave the liquor store after you heard the loud sound."
   
   Once the witness starts to respond to the investigator's open question, the investigator should not interrupt the account. Rather, he should encourage the witness to fully respond to the question with phrases such as "please continue," "I understand," or "alright." Certainly, during the course of an open account additional questions will occur to the investigator. However, if the investigator interrupts the witness' response with a detail question, e.g."How many shots did you hear?" the interview will quickly deteriorate to an undesirable question and answer session.
6. Ask clarifying questions before detail questions. As the name implies, clarifying questions are intended to draw out further information about a topic mentioned within an open response. Examples of clarifying questions include, "Tell me more about what you heard prior to the fight;" "Describe the vehicle that struck the woman"; or "Tell me again about what caused you to step out of your house?"
   
   Detail questions seek specific answers and should be reserved for the conclusion of the interview. They fill in gaps of missing information not volunteered by the witness through the use of open or clarifying questions. Examples of detail questions are, "What time did this happen?" "What color was the car?" "Did he strike him with his left or right hand?" Because detail questions force the witness to offer specific information, they are the most likely questions to elicit false information. Failure to offer a definitive response to a detail question holds a negative connotation - the witness is stupid, the witness is uncooperative, the witness is withholding information. Consequently, witnesses are prone to lie to detail questions.
7. Memory - enhancing techniques. It is the investigator's goal to develop accurate and complete information from a witness. The previously listed techniques are designed to increase the accuracy of information. To increase the amount of information a witness recalls, consider these tactics:
   
   Traumatized witnesses should always be re-interviewed at a later date. Especially when the witness is also a victim, it is important to gain immediate information in an effort to quickly identify a possible suspect and collect relevant evidence. Frequently, however, a traumatized witness will be able to recall further information 24 or 48 hours following the incident. After taking the initial report, the investigator should prepare the traumatized witness for a second interview with a statement such as the following:
   

"Linda, I know this has been difficult for you and I really appreciate your assistance. In cases like this, I have found that a person will remember more about what happened if given some time to think about it. I would like to talk to you again tomorrow afternoon to update you on our investigation and to find out what else you remember. Would that be alright?"

Have the witness write down their recollections. Many individuals are kinesthetic thinkers in that the act of writing will help stimulate and organize memories. This should not be introduced as a "written statement" but rather as a technique to assist the witness' recollection. For example, the witness may be given a sheet of paper with the numbers one through ten listed as a column and asked to write down, in sequence, ten recollections about the event. Once this task is completed, the investigator can ask the witness to try to add two more recollections following each of the ten points.

Consider using cognitive interviewing techniques. These specialized techniques are specifically designed to enhance a person's recall. They require a cooperative witness and should be utilized in a controlled environment. The witness should be relaxed and comfortable. It may also be appropriate to ask the witness to close their eyes to help concentrate.

The first technique involves recalling the incident in reverse order. The witness would be asked to start their story with the last recollection, and working toward the first recollection. The investigator could also ask the witness to tell their story from a different perspective. For example, in a hit and run accident, the witness could be asked to tell the story from the victim's perspective.

A second concept within cognitive interviewing involves asking hypothetical questions about the recalled event. In the process of answering these questions, further memories may be stimulated within the witness. Examples of these questions include:

"Did he remind you of anyone you know?"
"Why do you think he was dressed the way he was?"
"What do you think the man did for a living?"
"Where do you think he was from?"
"Did the man mention any names?"


Conclusion

Developing accurate and complete information from witnesses is critical to any criminal investigation. This information may determine whether or not a crime was committed, the direction in which an investigation goes and the identification of the perpetrator of a crime. Yet, too often, investigators engage in procedures that fail to identify valuable witnesses to a crime, or question witnesses with techniques that result in missing or erroneous information. Of primary importance, investigators need to create a private environment to interview witnesses which will, in turn, allow for more structure within the interview. Specifically, the investigator should start the interview by asking open questions followed by clarifying questions. Only at the conclusion of the interview should the investigator ask detail questions, take written notes and obtain personal information about the witness.

Credit and Permission Statement: This Investigator Tip was developed by John E. Reid and Associates Inc. Permission is hereby granted to those who wish to share or copy the article. For additional 'tips' visit www.reid.com; select 'Educational Information' and 'Investigator Tip'. Inquiries regarding Investigator Tips should be directed to Janet Finnerty johnreid@htc.net. For more information regarding Reid seminars and training products, contact John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. at 800-255-5747 or www.reid.com.

For interviewing and interrogation techniques training in Canada you may also contact The Canadian Tactical Training Academy www.ctta-global.com, tel: 514-373-8411

StopPedophilia.ca

Canada is the number two nation in the world for hosting child sex sites -- not a reputation to be proud of. About 80% of those convicted of child pornography in Canada had images of children under the age of 8; 19% had images of babies and toddlers under the age of 3.


Every child sex image is a crime scene. Each image represents the horrific sexual violation of an innocent child.And every image posted on the Internet sentences that child to lifelong pain and humiliation.

Canadian judges routinely hand out light sentences for sexual offences against children, and pedophiles are often back in the community within months, free to abuse other kids,

The purpose of StopPedophilia.ca is threefold: 1) to provide resources that will help parents and stakeholders to protect children; 2) to provide resources for victims/survivors; and 3) to provide resources for perpetrators who sincerely want help.


StopPedophiles.ca is published by Canada Family Action: FamilyAction.org