We’ve all heard so much in the news about fraud over the last several years. Not a day goes by that we don’t hear about an executive caught with his hand in the cookie jar, a company that failed to follow proper accounting rules, or a compensation structure that led someone to cheat with the numbers.

In some ways, I think people are becoming immune to fraud. The cases don’t seem as significant as they would have been five years ago. They’re not as shocking as they used to be. It is sad that fraud is becoming more commonplace. And the more we hear about fraud, the more I think companies run the risk of not taking it seriously.

Most importantly, I think people are running around with some big misconceptions about employee fraud. If they mistakenly believe their company is not at risk, they are probably not actively preventing fraud. Companies must know the truth about fraud and its perpetrators in order to actively protect themselves.

UPDATE: In March 2011, CFO Jacky Lam of China Media Express and the auditors (Deloitte) resigned. Deloitte said they could no longer rely on the representations of management, and they suggested an investigation was in order. Ping Luo, the analyst from Global Hunter who gave CCME rave reviews resigned. Maurice Greenberg’s Starr Investments sued CCME for fraudulently inducing it to invest $13.5 million. The stock was delisted from the NASDAQ in May 2011.

Deloitte raised the following issues: questionable authenticity of bank statements, supicioius bank confirmation procedures, existence of advertisers/customers, undisclosed bank accounts and bank loans, financial filings with the State Administration of Industry and Commerce differing from information provided to auditors, questionable authenticity of tax filing documents, cash payments to employees, and double counting of buses.

Earlier this week, I posted an article about China MediaExpress Holdings (CCME) and the allegations of fraud that were leveled recently against the company. I took a look at some of the commentary out there, asked questions and made comments, and ultimately decided that I am concerned about the potential that the company is a fraud.

Supporters of CCME have questioned the reliability and authenticity of the fraud allegations, and have provided evidence of their own about why the critics of CCME should not be trusted. I haven’t looked at all of those counter arguments, but I have looked at some of them, and some appear credible. I do not discount the due diligence that has been done by a number of investors. I am sure that they found plenty of evidence to suggest that the company is completely legitimate and their numbers are reported accurately.

However, I still believe that something is wrong at the company.

Here’s why: Even if most of the fraud allegations are either improper or incorrect, I believe that at least some of them are likely to be true. Even if one or two or three of the fraud allegations are true, the company has a serious problem. In my experience, lying and fraud do not occur in a vacuum. When small lies or frauds are found, very often they are the tip of the iceberg and more dishonesty exists.

If you follow any business new sites, you can’t help but notice that the U.S. government is talking tough about enforcement. Issues like insider trading, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement, and healthcare fraud are hot topics. I question the government’s ability to significantly step up enforcement efforts, particularly in light of budgetary issues related to doing so, but businesses can’t take a chance that they will be able to fly under the radar.

White collar criminal defense lawyer Brian Mahany writes on his blog Due Diligence about why this issue of enforcement and compliance is so important:

A recent Compliance Week article, An Expensive Lesson on FCPA Compliance [subscription required], provides some valuable insights on the direction that our government is taking with enforcement. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations are a huge focus of the feds right now. Why? Because there are plenty of violations, there is pressure on the SEC to enforce laws of some sort, and there is money to be made in fining the violators.

According to Richard Kassin at The FCPA Blog:

The United States Sentencing Guidelines (USSG) continue to make life tough for those in charge of corporate compliance and ethics. Corporate attorneys, both in-house and outside counsel, must ensure that companies are following protocols set for by the USSG. Rightfully, companies focus first on profits. But where does that leave the issues of compliance and ethics?

Although the creation and maintenance of a proper compliance program is secondary to core business pursuits, wise managers and executives know how critical it is to obtain specialized outside counsel to conduct internal investigations.

The Association of Corporate Counsel publishes ACC Docket, a monthly magazine for members. The October 2010 issue features an article on the benefits of independent internal corporate investigations.

The most valuable portion of the article discuss how we have arrived at the point in which companies must have outside, independent counsel doing investigations:

When whistleblowers report potential ethics violations within companies, the first step the company must take is an internal investigation. The best internal investigations are independent and led by outside counsel, for a variety of reasons.

But what about the part of the investigation that involves analyzing accounting records, financial statements, and SEC filings? Management often wants to use internal finance professionals or their outside auditors for this task. It seems to make sense to utilize the expertise of people who are already familiar with the company’s finances.

From my Thought Leadership series at Securities Docket:

What is at the heart of almost every securities case, whether the case is pursued by the government or a private party? It is a trail of money. The difficulty in prosecuting or defending a securities case is the fact that there is voluminous financial data that must be culled, analyzed, and presented in a way that proves the case.

For the last three decades, securities and financial fraud cases have been evaluated by forensic accountants using manual processes. The financial investigators compared accounting data with source documents, ultimately trying to prove the source and use of funds.

There has been lots of chatter about the whistleblower provisions under Dodd-Frank. A whistleblower  can earn 10% to 30% of any penalty the federal government imposes against a company. And companies have to be very careful, because there are anti-retaliation provisions in the legislation too.

One problem with this legislation that I hadn’t thought about is the impact it could have on employees using fraud hotlines. One of the most common ways that fraud is detected within companies is via tips from employees, vendors, or customers. An anonymous hotline helps encourage the reporting of these tips.

The latest news in the Koss Corporation fraud committed by ex-VP of Finance Sue Sachdeva is a lawsuit filed by the company against Sachdeva and auditors Grant Thornton. It’s unlikely that the company will collect much from Sachdeva, but the auditors are a great target because they have deep pockets (especially in the form of a professional liability insurance policy).

Everyone expected Koss to sue Grant Thornton. It’s just standard procedure to sue the auditors after a fraud is discovered. It never matters to the companies that audits are not designed to detect fraud and the auditors tell management this over and over.

It never matters to the companies that they are the ones responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls over financial reporting, as well as putting procedures in place to prevent and detect fraud.