Man in boardroom
Managing Fraud Corruption Risk

47% have internal resources with limited availability to address fraud risk

17% have a “well defined” fraud risk strategy

52% conduct a formal fraud risk assessment at least annually

27% don’t conduct any formal fraud risk assessment

55% of midsize companies and 68% of small companies lack a fraud detection program​

35% do not conduct due diligence on business intermediaries (third parties) prior to onboarding

6% have a high level of confidence in their vendor fraud and corruption risk oversight

14% utilize ongoing forensic data analysis to identify potential red flags and fraud indicators​

​ Download Infographic
2016 Fraud Risk Survey Infographic
Fraud and Corruption Resources

Viewing Your Anti-Corruption Efforts Through the Lens of the Hallmarks of an Effective Compliance Program

A Strong Compliance Culture Starts with Managing Third-Party Corruption

DOJ "Yates Memo" Reminds Us that People, Not Corporations, Commit Crimes

Happy Cow vs. Hedgehog: Getting Straight on Principle 8


Inaugural White Collar Crime and Fraud Risk Survey

2016 Fraud Risk Survey

Taking the Best Route to Managing Fraud and Corruption Risk

Download Now Button 

Given the dynamic nature of white-collar crime and fraud, Protiviti and the Economic Crime and Justice Studies Department at Utica College conducted a comprehensive survey of white-collar crime and the fraud risk management frameworks used to combat them.

While there were a number of notable findings that emerged from our research, one thing seems quite clear: The majority of organizations are not well positioned to conduct investigations. Many organizations conducting investigations are under-resourced and are spending more time “putting out fires” than focusing on fraud detection and applying a consistent investigative approach. The majority of companies that are in this situation will very likely find it extremely difficult to identify the responsible parties and receive meaningful cooperation credit for having done so.

2016 Fraud Risk Survey video 
Watch our video discussing key findings from the survey

Other Notable Takeaways from this Year’s Study

​Most companies are still reactive, rather than proactive, in managing fraud risk and responding to fraud and corruption once issues have been identified because they lack resources and strategy. 
​Few companies are availing themselves of the tools and best practices for mitigating fraud risk.
​Third-party fraud and corruption risk is barely on the radar of most organizations. 
​Organizations without strong fraud detection and reporting programs face a higher risk of damaging “whistleblower” disclosures. 
​The trend toward “consultative” internal audits must be weighed against the deterrent effect of surprise audits. 
Podcast image ​Utica College’s Donald Rebovich and Protiviti’s Scott Moritz share their thoughts on key findings from the inaugural White Collar Crime and Fraud Risk Survey.

Contact Protiviti
Scott Moritz
Find the nearest Protiviti office

Recorded Webinar

Listen to the recorded version of our January 27th joint Protiviti, Utica College and BakerHostetler webinar that analyzes the trends from the results of the inaugural White Collar Crime and Fraud Risk Survey.

Register Now button  


KnowledgeLeader RCM Tool ad 


Related Protiviti Benchmarking Reports

2016 IT Audit Benchmarking Survey

2015 Vendor Risk Management Benchmarking Survey

2015 Internal Audit Capabilites and Needs Survey

2015 IT Security and Privacy Survey

2015 IT Priorities Survey

2015 Sarbanes-Oxley Compliance Survey

2016 Finance Priorities Survey