Better than cure – the evidence

Fraud risk management is practised across the globe but the underlying principles are implemented in varying degrees. While some firms have comprehensive and coordinated anti-fraud strategies, others focus instead on individual measures. The resulting gaps can leave firms, and fraud risk teams themselves, vulnerable to shock and loss, says David Luijerink of KPMG.

David Luijerink (+44 (0)20 7694 5008, david.luijerink@kpmg.co.uk) is an associate partner at KPMG Forensic, London.

Firms that operate with entity-wide fraud risk management (FRM) arrangements are finding that the programmes are most effective when the holistic basis of the discipline is clearly understood. It follows that governance – how to direct, integrate, embed and oversee FRM – is a fundamental part of the process. Critical to its effectiveness is the assembly of performance indicators that gauge both risk and progress in reducing it.