Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

The ramifications of fraud and how you can prevent it

03.28.16

The Ramifications of Fraud and How You Can Prevent it

Welcome to part two of our article on nonprofit fraud. If you missed our first installment, you can read it here.

You’ve just become aware of a fraud that has occurred at a nonprofit in your community. As someone who cares about the community and the nonprofit sector, you start to wonder, “What is going to happen to that organization”?

While the ramifications can differ in each case, they probably will include some, if not all, of the following:

  • The board and management will want to understand how the fraud happened, and what management is doing to prevent it from ever happening again.
  • The community is going to look to the board for answers, and wonder why the organization didn’t have controls in place to prevent the fraud.
  • Management will be expected to explain to the board where the breakdown in controls occurred that allowed the employee to steal from the organization.
  • The board knows it has a fiduciary duty to oversee the organization and its internal controls and assets. They aren’t sure what they should have done differently, given that they’re volunteers doing this community service in addition to their “day jobs.”
  • The board and management will want to reach out to donors to assure them that their contributions to the organization are going to be recovered if possible, and that controls are being improved to help safeguard future gifts.

This organization could potentially lose major donors if they believe there are not enough controls in place to ensure their dollars are being spent according to their wishes. If enough donors are negatively affected by this event and choose not to support the organization, its very survival may be at stake, thus impacting those in the community the entity serves.

Management will now have to divert time and other resources not only to implement stronger internal controls to help ensure this does not happen again, but also to reassure the board and the public that the organization is well protected to prevent future fraud.

Fraud can be extremely costly to an organization, not only from a financial perspective, as often the organization will not recover the stolen funds, but also from the loss of an organization’s reputation as a trusted charity. This can be even more devastating. The organization may never recover in the public’s eye, risking their relationships with not only their long-time donors but also new and future donors.

What can you do?

So, what can you do to help prevent fraud from recurring, or to detect it quickly if it does? Here is a simple, yet effective three-step process:

  1. Consider the risks of fraud and determine where it is more likely to occur.
  2. Look closely at the internal controls the organization currently has in place and determine whether they address these risks sufficiently.
  3. Identify gaps where controls are inadequate, and identify controls to be put in place where they are most needed.

Organizations can also consult their auditors to seek advice and guidance on how to implement these very important internal controls. It may be prudent to review previous audits to see if auditors have brought risks to management’s and the board’s attention, and if they provided recommendations on how to improve their current control structure.

The silver lining? The board and management now have a keener sense of the risks of fraud in the nonprofit environment, which should contribute to an engaged dialogue among the board, management and the auditors about how to develop and implement cost-effective controls that protect the organization’s assets.

As part of the audit, the auditors may point out one or more shortcomings in controls that they believe constitute a “material weakness.” While that may sound ominous, it merely means (in auditing jargon) a situation involving a reasonable possibility of a material misstatement of the financial statements. Auditors tend to set the bar low when it comes to classifying deficiencies that create fraud risks as material weaknesses, for the simple fact that users of the financial statements (donors, lenders, other funders) tend to have a lower materiality threshold with respect to misstatements caused by theft.

It is also important to remember that control deficiencies noted in previous audits that may not have been considered material weaknesses in the past may be considered that way today, as expectations of management’s actions regarding fraud prevention and detection go up every time a nonprofit fraud incident hits the media.

Every organization that has more than one person (including board members) associated with it has the opportunity to segregate incompatible duties at some level to help protect assets. At times, organizations don’t have such segregation in place, but instead have implemented compensating controls, such as detailed review of monthly financial statements by the appropriate level of management and/or the board. If this is the case, the organization should ask itself the following questions in order to avoid over-relying on this compensating control:

  • How does this compensating control work? Who reviews the financials, what is their experience level, and how do they document their review to confirm that it’s being done?
  • How often do you question expenditures, and are these questions and their answers evaluated and documented? It is important to remember here that a fraudster would be working hard to escape detection by this compensating control.
  • If the compensating control is a detailed review compared to budget:
    • Who is involved in building the budget?
    • What are the controls that would protect against a fraudster building their theft into budgeted expense line items?

Take a proactive fraud risk assessment and response like the one described here to give you reasonable comfort proper controls are in place to prevent and/or detect fraud. This isn’t about being paranoid – it’s simply a matter of prudently carrying out your fiduciary and management responsibilities to protect the organization you feel so strongly about.

Remember, the one characteristic that every financial theft in history shares—someone was trusted at some point.

Read this if you're a broker-dealer. 

The implementation of Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Accounting Standards Codification (ASC) 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers, which has been in effect since 2018 for broker-dealers, has had a profound impact on financial reporting across various industries. For broker-dealers, the adoption of this standard has introduced new challenges and considerations in recognizing revenue accurately and in accordance with the principles outlined in ASC 606.  

FASB ASC 606 provides a comprehensive framework for recognizing revenue from customer contracts. The standard replaces the previous industry-specific guidance and aims to create consistency and comparability across different sectors by establishing a five-step process for recognizing revenue. For broker-dealers, who engage in a wide range of financial transactions, the standard requires a careful assessment of revenue recognition practices.  

The ASC 606 five-step process for broker-dealers  

  1. Identification of contracts with customers

Broker-dealers must identify contracts with customers, which can include various financial instruments and transactions. The standard emphasizes the importance of assessing whether an agreement creates enforceable rights and obligations between parties.  

  1. Performance obligations

ASC 606 introduces the concept of performance obligations, which are promises to transfer goods or services to customers. For broker-dealers, this may involve analyzing the various components of financial transactions to determine distinct performance obligations.  

  1. Determine the transaction price

Determining the transaction price is crucial and should only reflect the amount of consideration to which a broker-dealer expects to be entitled in exchange for goods or services transferred. The transaction price includes only those amounts to which the reporting entity has rights under the present contract.  

  1. Transaction price allocation

The transaction price needs to be allocated to each performance obligation in a manner that reflects the stand-alone selling price.  

  1. Timing of revenue recognition

ASC 606 provides guidance on when revenue should be recognized. Factors to consider include the transfer of control, delivery of services, or the satisfaction of other identified performance obligations.  

There were many challenges faced by broker-dealers with the implementation of ASC 606.  BerryDunn’s broker-dealer team is well positioned to bring tailored, innovative solutions and a proactive approach to help clients overcome these challenges, ensuring measurable results and open communication throughout the process. 

Challenges faced by broker-dealers in implementing ASC 606

  • Complexity of financial transactions: Broker-dealers engage in a wide array of complex financial transactions, involving multiple components and varying terms. Identifying distinct performance obligations and accurately allocating transaction prices to each component can be challenging.  

  • Variable consideration and contingent fees: Financial arrangements often include variable consideration, such as contingent fees, performance-based incentives, or market fluctuations. Determining the appropriate estimation methods for variable consideration introduces challenges in accurately reflecting the total transaction price.  

  • Identification of performance obligations: Defining performance obligations in broker-dealer transactions requires a nuanced understanding of the services provided. Determining whether services are distinct and should be accounted for separately can be subjective and may vary based on the specifics of each transaction.  

  • Technology and data management: Many broker-dealers rely on sophisticated trading platforms and systems for their operations. Implementing ASC 606 often necessitates adjustments to these systems to capture and track the required data for accurate revenue recognition.  

  • Transition from industry-specific guidance: Broker-dealers were accustomed to industry-specific guidance for revenue recognition before ASC 606. The transition to a more principles-based approach requires a shift in mindset and the development of new processes to align with the standard's overarching principles.  

  • Documentation and disclosures: The standard introduces enhanced disclosure requirements, demanding comprehensive documentation and transparent reporting. Broker-dealers must invest time and resources in developing robust documentation processes to meet these disclosure obligations.  

  • Impact on key financial metrics: Implementing ASC 606 can lead to significant changes in reported revenue figures and other key financial metrics. Broker-dealers need to anticipate and communicate these changes to stakeholders, managing potential concerns or misunderstandings about the impact on financial performance.  

  • Training and education: The adoption of ASC 606 requires a solid understanding of the standard's principles among finance and accounting teams. Broker-dealers need to invest in training programs to ensure that their staff is equipped to apply the standard correctly and consistently across the organization.  

  • Contract modifications and changes: Broker-dealer contracts are dynamic and may undergo modifications over time. Managing changes in contract terms and assessing their impact on revenue recognition adds another layer of complexity to compliance with ASC 606.  

  • Audit and compliance assurance: Ensuring compliance with ASC 606 requires thorough audit processes. Broker-dealers need to work closely with auditors to address any complexities, provide documentation, and demonstrate adherence to the standard's requirements.  

ASC 606 has brought about a paradigm shift in how broker-dealers recognize revenue. Adhering to the principles outlined in ASC 606 requires a thorough understanding of complex financial transactions and the ability to apply the standard's provisions accurately. Successful implementation not only ensures compliance with accounting standards but also enhances transparency and consistency in financial reporting for broker-dealers.  

As the industry continues to evolve, staying abreast of regulatory changes and refining revenue recognition practices will be crucial for navigating the dynamic landscape. Let BerryDunn’s broker-dealer team help you navigate the effects of ASC 606, contact us with any questions.   

Article
Revenue recognition: Implications for broker-dealers

Read this if you are a broker-dealer. 

Effective January 1, 2023, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and other industry self-regulatory organizations adopted certain changes to the securities industry continuing education (CE) and registration rules to train registered persons more effectively.

These upcoming changes, which include the annual Regulatory Element for each registration category and the extension of the Firm Element to all registered persons, are expected to help make sure all registered persons receive timely and relevant training. See below for some of these changes.

Annual Regulatory Element for each registration category Extension of Firm Element
of all registered persons

Annually, by December 31st, registered persons will be required to complete the CE Regulatory Element

Registered persons will receive content tailored specifically to each representative or principal registration category they hold

Failure to complete the Regulatory Requirement annually will cause the registered person to be automatically designated as CE inactive by FINRA

The CE rules have been amended to:

  • Extend the annual Firm Element requirement to all registered persons
  • Allow firms to consider their training programs relating to the anti-money laundering compliance meeting toward satisfying an individual's annual Firm Element requirement

The current minimum Firm Element training criteria has been revised to require the training to cover topics related to professional responsibility and the role, activities, or responsibilities of the registered person


Firms should begin to prepare now for these changes. FINRA and the CE Council are committed to developing resources and guidance to support firms as they assess their education needs and develop their training requirements. FINRA is committed to providing more information as it becomes available. 

What can you do now to comply with these upcoming rule changes by January 1, 2023?
Review FINRA’s Regulatory Notice 21-41 and FINRA’s CE Transformation resource page to become familiar with upcoming changes. Review the 2023 Regulatory Element topics on FINRA’s website.

If you have any questions about your specific situation or would like more information, please contact our Broker-dealers team. We're here to help. 

Article
Important changes to securities industry continuing education

It’s Monday morning. You grab a cup of coffee and flip on the local morning news before you get ready for work. The lead story catches your attention “Local Accounts Payable Manager Steals Thousands.” Based on your experience as a board member of a nonprofit organization and the prior fraud you’ve heard about in the community, three things come into your mind:

  1. The fraud involves either a nonprofit organization or local government.
  2. The Board will come out and say how shocked they are – Fred has been here forever, and we trusted him!
  3. The Board will state they have now put in place proper controls to ensure this will never happen again.

And you may be close to the mark. Nonprofits and governmental organizations often have a higher risk of fraudulent behavior and theft due to their limited resources and ability to implement strict fraud prevention controls. What makes these organizations so susceptible?

  • They frequently run on tight or breakeven budgets, which means they have difficulty hiring enough people to implement strict internal controls.
  • They often have a salary structure that is lower than that of for-profit companies, creating incentive for employees to commit theft in order to make ends meet.
  • They are sometimes targeted by unscrupulous individuals who know that they likely lack the resources available to stop them.

In addition, nonprofits often seek to hire people who believe in the mission. While this can lead to tireless, dedicated employees, certain side effects of this approach may come into play and increase the risk of theft. For example:

  • The passion for, and shared commitment to, the mission at many nonprofits give rise to a culture of trust. This culture of trust may cause the organization to be less likely to implement checks and balances critical to sound internal controls.
  • New employees are sometimes drawn to a specific nonprofit organization because they have experienced some of the challenges which the organization was formed to address. Working for the organization may help them in some ways, but it may also create more financial strain for them or family members, increasing the chances of them committing illegal acts.

There are three elements that must be present for fraud to occur. These are the three sides of what is collectively called the fraud triangle: opportunity, incentive, and rationalization.

  • Opportunity: an employee working at a nonprofit may have opportunity if they are a trusted employee and resources are limited, causing the internal controls to be less robust than they should be.
  • Incentive: the incentive is in place when an employee, as mentioned above, has unexpected events happen in their life that may pressure them into committing fraud.
  • Rationalization: the employee rationalizes that they need the money for their family to survive. This often starts as “I’ll just borrow the money until payday”. Unfortunately, payday arrives and the funds aren’t available to be repaid; in fact, they need to “borrow” just a little more.

Let’s be clear, though – many nonprofits, regardless of size, have appropriately designed and implemented controls that properly protect the organization from the risks of fraud.

Soon we’ll look further at the ramifications frauds can have for nonprofits and how any organization—even small nonprofits, can put certain internal controls in place, to reduce the chances they’ll be the next organization in the headline story of the morning news.

Article
Fraud – why it can happen to you and what to know when It does