Rarely used surprise audits, are reported as a leader in fraud detection

Rarely used surprise audits, are reported as a leader in fraud detection


Surprise audits are one of the least-used forms of anti-fraud controls, but one of the most effective, according to a 2014 Report to the Nations on Occupational Fraud and Abuse by the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE).

Only 29 percent of American companies who were victims of fraud in the ACFE study used surprise audits as a method of detection. But after tips and management reviews, internal audits proved the next most effective means of discovering occupational fraud, detecting illegal activity in 14 percent of cases.

Conducting a regular external audit – which, at 73 percent, was the most common control enacted by most victim organizations along with implementing a code of conduct – was also one of the least effective means of detecting fraud, at 3 percent, according to the report.

More cases of employee fraud were detected by accident than by an external audit. The ACFE noted that while external audits serve many essential functions, they should not be strongly relied upon as a fraud detection tool.

Proactive fraud deterrents, such as surveillance/monitoring, account reconciliation and surprise audits, significantly reduce the duration and amount of fraud losses.

For instance, surveillance and monitoring detects fraudulent activity in a median of nine months, according to the study, with median losses of $49,000.

Internal audits bring fraud to light in a median of 18 months, with the median amount stolen – $100,000.

Regular external audits, on the other hand, are a passive means of detection, along with discovering fraud by accident and being informed by law enforcement. They allow fraud to go on for longer periods of time, and the loss is substantially higher.

Other than notification by law enforcement, crimes discovered by regular external audits had the highest median loss – $360,000. The duration of fraudulent activity before it was discovered by external audit was 30 months.

The study concluded that many of the most effective fraud deterrents – including surveillance/monitoring, management review and surprise audits – are being overlooked by most organizations and should be considered when investing future anti-fraud dollars.

Whether you suspect fraud within your company or you simply want to monitor the flow of money through your organization, working with your CPA or a forensic accountant can help by uncovering potential embezzlement, employee theft, or any other type of fraud that might be going on.

About MKS&H:

McLean, Koehler, Sparks & Hammond (MKS&H) is a professional service firm with offices in Hunt Valley and Frederick. MKS&H helps owners and organizational leaders become more successful by putting complex financial data into truly meaningful context. But deeper than dollars and data, our focus is on developing an understanding of you, your culture and your business goals. This approach enables our clients to achieve their greatest potential.

Like what you read? Sign-up for our C-Suite Spotlight Program.

About Author


MKS&H is committed to providing personalized tax and accounting services while developing a deep understanding of you, your culture, and your business goals. Our full view of financial systems and the people behind them allow us create and evolve the best solution that will help you and your business thrive. The accounting experts and consulting professionals at MKS&H work together to help you achieve the financial results you want.

Related posts

How to Prevent Business Fraud

Think fraud cannot occur in your organization? Think again. No organization is immune to fraud. All organizations are susceptible to fraud whether they realize it or not. Did you know that small businesses are the organizations most susceptible to fraud? Much of this exposure comes from the “it couldn’t...

Read More