Fraud Survey 2004 by PDRM

Fraud Survey - Malaysia 1
2 KPMG Forensic
FOREWORD
We are pleased to present the results of KPMG Forensic's third biennial survey of
fraud in Malaysia.
Since 2000, the KPMG Fraud Survey has established a reputation as the most credible
and widely quoted survey of fraud in Malaysian business. As a leading provider of
forensic services, KPMG believes that it is important to quantify the trend, nature
and extent of fraud in today's business environment. The Malaysian KPMG Fraud
Survey is our contribution to that end.
Fraud and white collar crime have increased considerably over the recent years, and
professionals believe this trend is likely to continue. The cost of fraud to businesses
is difficult to estimate because not all fraud and abuse is discovered, not all uncovered
fraud is reported, and civil or criminal action is not always pursued. However, the
statistics we currently have show the astronomical values associated with fraud.
The cost of fraud does not stop at a monetary figure with lots of noughts behind it.
Its insidious nature seeps into and erodes the core elements that all business is built
upon: confidence and trust.
When fraud is detected within a business, there is usually shock and disbelief that a
trusted employee who resembles the "person next door" could have done what they
are accused of. The initial response is "How could that have happened?" In light of
the cost and characteristics of offenders, it is important to develop strategies to
prevent or detect business fraud. It is also essential as the expansion of computer
usage in business make organisations more vulnerable to fraud and abuse.
In order to combat fraud and white collar crime in businesses, a concerted effort
must be exerted by the management of the business, the external auditors, and by
all employees of the business. Everyone must realize that fraud is not a victimless
crime. The cost of fraud and theft are shared by all through higher costs and lower
corporate profits. A comprehensive strategy for fraud governance is essential if an
organisation is to reduce the likelihood and impact of major fraud. Good fraud
governance requires more than just ensuring an effective system of internal controls.
It also requires a clear message and oversight from senior executives and non
executives, clear policies and standards, knowledge of the key fraud risks, effective
fraud reporting, fraud awareness training, and the development of a culture of high
ethics and honesty.
We are conscious of the fact that our study will be a significant benchmark analysis
of fraud in this country. It is, therefore, with a deep sense of responsibility that we
share these findings with you. We hope that you find the results of this survey as
insightful as we do.
We take this opportunity to express our appreciation to the people and businesses
who took the time and effort to participate in this survey and share their thoughts
and experiences with us. Without their support, this report would not be possible.
Let us all hope that we have all made a small beginning in the right direction to
combat fraud within corporate Malaysia.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The findings summarized below are of particular importance:
62% of respondents felt that fraud is a major problem for Malaysian business
generally.
83% of respondents acknowledged experiencing fraud in their organization. This
is an increase of 33% from the 2002 survey.
36% of companies suffered total losses of RM10,001 to RM100,000 to fraudulent
conduct in the survey period while 17% suffered losses in excess of RM 1 million
(the "survey period" is the period from January 2003 to December 2004).
Good internal controls (44%), management investigation (37%) and internal audit
review (29%) rank highly as methods of fraud detection.
87% of the frauds were perpetrated internally [non-management employees
(69%) and management employees (18%)]. This was a decrease of 10% from
the 2002 survey.
Inadequate internal controls and collusion between employees and third party
were cited as the most common reason giving rise to fraud.
The four most common prevention methodologies were indicated as being review
and improved internal controls, improved security measures, pre-employment
screening and establishing a corporate code of conduct / ethics.
30% of the respondents that experienced fraud indicated that "red flags" or warning
signs which should have alerted respondents to the fraud were ignored by either
management or supervisory personnel.
Secret commission / kickbacks (25%) and lapping & kiting* (21%) were the two
most common types of fraud encountered. A comparison with the last survey
showed an increase of 15% in secret commission / kickbacks and 5% in lapping
& kiting.
The typical fraudster is male within the age group of 26-40 years and has an
annual income of RM15,000-RM30,000. Most frauds reported by respondents
were committed by individuals employed between 2-5 years.
85% of respondents considered computer / information system to be a potential
security risk.
38% of respondents considered intellectual property to be at the risk of fraud.
* Lapping is the act of fraudulently withholding cash receipts and covering up the current deficiency by
depositing subsequent receipts.
Kiting is defined as the act of fraudulently misstating the accounts of an organization by showing the same
amount of deposit simultaneously in two of its bank accounts. Depositing in one bank account a cheque
drawn on another and recording in the books of the accounts only the deposit on the day of the transfer can
accomplish this.
4 KPMG Forensic
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT THE SURVEY
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
OPINIONS OF FRAUD
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
FRAUD EXPERIENCE
FRAUD DISCOVERY
AREAS OF LOSSES DUE TO FRAUD
WHY THE FRAUD OCCURRED
ACTIONS TAKEN CONCERNING DETECTING FRAUD
FRAUD DETECTION AND PREVENTION
SCREENING PROCEDURES
FRAUD KNOWLEDGE
BUSINESS ETHICS
INFORMATION SECURITY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
PROFILE OF FRAUDSTER
INITIAL ACTION IN THE EVENT OF FRAUD
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
KPMG FORENSIC
5
6
8
9
10
12
14
15
16
18
19
20
21
22
24
25
26
27
27
ABOUT THE SURVEY
In January 2005, KPMG Forensic Malaysia circulated a fraud survey questionnaire to
the chief executives of all the public listed companies on the Bursa Malaysia. As it
is sometimes difficult and often a sensitive subject, respondents were given the
option to remain anonymous.
For the purpose of this survey, "fraud" is defined as a deliberate deceit planned and
executed with the intent to deprive another of property or rights directly or indirectly,
regardless of whether the perpetrator benefits form his / her actions. Silence, when
good faith requires expression, constitutes deceit.
The objective of this survey was to determine the overall level of fraud, fraud
awareness and fraud prevention measures amongst senior management. The survey
period is from January 2003 to December 2004.
Participants in this survey were asked questions relating to:
Their opinion as to the extent of fraud in business within their own company;
Fraud experienced against their organization;
Actions taken when fraud was detected;
Their company's vulnerability to fraud;
How fraud is prevented or detected;
Business ethics and corporate governance.
Their opinion on information security within their company and the level of
preventative measures in place; and
Their opinion on the risk of intellectual property fraud and the level of preventative
measures in place.
A total of 130 responses were received for this survey, which represented 14% of
the total number of companies listed on the Bursa Malaysia as at 1 January 2005*.
* The total number of companies listed on the Bursa Malaysia as at 1 January 2005 is 900 (622: Main Board,
278: Second Board).
6 KPMG Forensic
PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS
Survey respondents
The industry sector profile of the 2004 survey respondents as compared with
those in the 2002 survey is as follows:
The survey questionnaires were, for the most part, completed by Chief Financial
Officers / Controllers. The profile of the 2004 participants as compared with those
in the 2002 survey is as follows:
The table below indicates the number of people employed by the respondents'
organization:
This survey included organizations with annual revenues ranging from less than
RM5 million to revenues in excess of RM500 million.
8 KPMG Forensic
OPINIONS OF FRAUD
Is fraud a major problem for Malaysian business
today?
The well-publicized corporate scandals of recent years have
brought the issue of fraud to the forefront of managements
attention, particularly the threat of fraud occurring within the
organization itself. Globally, organizations are beginning to look
inward to better understand the fraud risks inherent within
their organizations and to proactively manage the risks of
fraud.
We were interested to find out the general view of
organizations towards fraud in Malaysia today. It is interesting
to note that the majority (62%) of respondents felt that fraud is
a major problem for Malaysian business generally.
Will fraud increase, decrease or stay the same in the
future?
We also asked respondents whether fraud will increase,
decrease or stay the same over the next 2 years. 44% of
respondents believed that fraud will be on the increase in the
next 2 years.
Is fraud a major problem for your business?
Respondents were then asked whether fraud is a major
problem within their business. 37% believe it is a major
problem. Those who did not view this as major problem
attribute this to the effective security in place (76%) and the
business (13%) or industry (10%) which does not attract fraud.
CORPORATE GOVERNANCE
Are there any plans to improve corporate
governance?
Survey participants were also asked if their organization has
taken or plans to take any action towards improving corporate
governance. 64% responded that their organizations have
implemented most of the recommendations while 33% have
implemented some of the recommendations towards
improving corporate governance.
Awareness about corporate governance
Survey participants were asked to indicate their level of
knowledge or awareness regarding the Code of Corporate
Governance. 17% of the respondents claimed to be very
knowledgeable while 80% claimed to be knowledgeable.
10 KPMG Forensic
FRAUD EXPERIENCE
Awareness of fraud
To more clearly understand the impact of fraud, the factors that contribute to it,
and tell the ways in which it is detected and dealt with, we asked organizations to
tell us more about the fraud detected during the survey period.
Occurance of fraud
Respondents were asked if they were aware of any fraud that had occurred in
their organizations in the last 2 years. 83% of the respondents indicated that their
organization had been affected by fraud. This was an increase of 33% from the
2002 survey.
What were the sources for the occurrence for fraud?
Of the total 109 respondents that expericed fraud, 69% claimed that their non-
management employees were the most significant perpetrators of fraud whilst
18% claimed it was their management. On the other hand, external sources of
fraud perpetrators were customers (26%), suppliers (22%) and service providers
(21%).
[Note that some respondents indicated more than one response]
Sources of the largest financial losses due to fraud
To obtain an understanding of the impact of fraud and in which areas fraud risk
was highest, we asked survey participants to comment on the source of losses
suffered. Of the sources identified, non-management employees (52%) were the
source of their largest financial loss, followed by customers (17%), suppliers
(14%) and management (14%).
It is certainly a cause for concern that the very people entrusted to run and
operate an organization are often themselves the perpetrators of fraud. Our
findings underline the importance of implementing a broad-based fraud risk
management strategy that extends beyond a set of sophisticated internal
controls. A broad-based fraud risk management plan should include:
A sound fraud and ethics policy;
A periodic fraud risk assessment;
An effective internal audit function;
A well defined and independent whistle blowing hotline;
Stringent pre-employment screening; and
A fidelity guarantee insurance policy.
12 KPMG Forensic
FRAUD DISCOVERY
Overall, fraud was detected internally and these internal methods of detection
were far more effective than any other external mechanisms.
The findings highlights the importance of implementing a well-defined and
independent channel for whistle blowing, developing managements ability to
identify red flags and establishing an effective internal audit function to enable
early detection of fraud.
Whistle blowing is one of the most effective means of fraud detection. Having a
well-defined and protected channel for reporting incidents or suspicions of fraud
facilitates whistle blowing, which can lead to early detection of fraud. An
independent conduit that ensures the anonymity of the whistleblower will further
encourage whistle blowing in an organization.
How was the fraud discovered?
Survey participants were also asked to indicate how the frauds were discovered.
In several cases, respondents discovered fraud by more than one method. The
most common method of detecting fraud was through internal controls (43%),
which increased 4% from the last survey. Investigation by management (37%),
internal auditor review (29%), notification by employee (15%) and notification by
customer (15%) were the other methods of fraud detection.
Are you aware of the amount of loss suffered due to fraud?
Out of these, 70% of the 109 businesses who have acknowledge experiencing
fraud in the past were aware of the amount of losses their business suffered.
What is the estimated loss due to fraud?
It is revealing to note that 36% of the companies suffered losses in excess of
RM10,001 to RM100,000 over the past years due to fraud. 17% of the companies
suffered losses above RM1 million, while 22% reported incurring losses of
RM10,000 and below as a result of fraud. These findings disclose the growing
importance of fraud risk management within organizations today.
14 KPMG Forensic
In which areas did the majority of losses due to fraud occur?
Secret commission / kickbacks (25%) and lapping & kiting (21%) were the two
most common types of frauds encountered. Following closely behind were fraud
relating to false invoices (20%), expense account (17%), bid rigging / price fixing
(12%) misuse of information (10%) and purchase for personal use (9%). A
comparison with the last survey showed an increase of 15% in secret
commission / kickbacks and 5% in lapping & kiting.
These figures indicate that even in this age of information technology and
electronic commerce, businesses should also maintain their guard against
traditional frauds. Businesses, which overlook or ignore the physical aspects of
security, take on an unnecessary risk.
AREAS OF LOSSES DUE TO FRAUD
WHY THE FRAUD OCCURRED
What allowed the fraud to take place?
Effective internal controls are crucial in preventing and detecting fraud. The
responses indicated that the major factor allowing fraud to occur was inadequate
internal controls (58%) and the collusion between employees and third party
(49%). These two factors combined represented the most important pre-condition
for fraud.
Were Red Flags or warning signs ignored?
Red Flags are early warning signs or indicators that fraud may have occurred.
30% of the respondents indicated that red flags or warning signs were ignored
by either management or supervisory personnel. Compared to the 2002 survey,
there has been a decrease of 8%.
Examples of red flags:
Refusing to take leave;
Resigning suddenly or failing to attend work for no apparent reason;
Drugs;
Management who take an unusual interest in certain elements of the
organization's business;
Management overriding controls;
Habitual gambling; and
Persistent anomalies.
Had these warning signs been acted upon, the earlier discovery of the fraud
would most likely have resulted in reduced losses. In this regards, fraud
awareness among employees and managers of an organization is a vital
component of any anti-fraud strategy.
16 KPMG Forensic
ACTIONS TAKEN CONCERNING DETECTED FRAUD
What did you do regarding the fraud?
When fraud, particularly internal fraud is detected, the victim organization and the
organizations leadership invariably find themselves dealing with an unwanted and
distracting crisis. The organizational response to this crisis is often marked by
conflicting and competing priorities and agendas.
Careful consideration of the cost, benefits and implications of all possible actions
when dealing with fraud incidents is important to avoid sending wrong signals to
potential fraudsters. Choosing the option of resolving the problem quietly to avoid
adverse publicity or save time and costs may give the impression that not a
serious view on fraud is taken by management. On contrary, taking stern actions
will demonstrate managements commitment to dealing with fraud severely. An
appropriate tone from the top is therefore critical to the creation of an ethical
environment which will facilitate effective and efficient management of fraud
risks.
A significant number (79%) of the companies, responded to the detection of
fraud with an investigation to find out what went wrong. The other actions taken
included immediate dismissal / disciplinary hearing (64%), reported to the police
(49%), reviewed by audit committee (38%) and insurance claim (23%).
What would be the main reason for not reporting fraud detected
within your organization to the police?
It is important to note that when investigations are not properly conducted, not only
will vital evidence remain undiscovered, but such valuable evidence may also be lost
or unknowingly destroyed and the organization may fail to uncover other instances
of fraud.
Fear of negative publicity was cited as the most common reason for not reporting
fraud.
18 KPMG Forensic
FRAUD DETECTION AND PREVENTION
What steps are planned to reduce the possibility of fraud?
By matching fraud risks to existing controls and implementing enhanced controls
where existing controls are inadequate, organizations can reduce their exposure
to fraud and prevent fraud from taking place.
The most significant initiative to reduce the risk of fraud concerns the review of
internal controls (78%), improving security measures (69%) and screening of new
employees (68%) and establishing a Corporate Code of Conduct / Ethics (57%)
are four of the most frequently citied actions taken for prevention of fraud.
Within your organization who takes ultimate responsibility for
preventing, detecting and investigating fraud?
Having well-defined responsibilities for managing fraud risks can help an
organization speed up the implementation of preventative measures and the
investigation of suspected fraudulent activities. We asked respondents who in
their organisations are responsible for overall fraud prevention, detection and
investigation.
The majority of respondents indicated that the internal audit of their organization
held this responsibility.
SCREENING PROCEDURES
Does your organization have screening procedures in place?
One of the most effective ways of reducing the risk from fraud is by stopping the
fraudster from ever joining the employment of your organization through trained
personnel and effective recruitment procedures.
88% of respondents indicated that they have screening procedures in place while
12% indicated that they have no such procedures. In the 2002 survey, 83% of
respondent confirmed having screening procedures in place. Taking into
consideration that most respondents indicated that employees were main source
of frauds and were also responsible for the largest financial losses, it would
appear that employee screening is an important element in a total anti-fraud
strategy.
What screening procedures are in place?
These respondents were then asked to identify screening procedures they have
in place. 93% conduct reference checks while 66% review financial information.
In which areas have screening procedures been implemented?
Of the 115 respondents who indicated that they have screening procedures in
place, the majority (87%) indicated that these procedures are utilised primarily
during the appointment of new employees.
20 KPMG Forensic
FRAUD KNOWLEDGE
Survey respondents were asked how knowledgeable they were about the ways in
which fraud could occur in an organization. 6% indicated that they were extremely
knowledgeable while 45% indicated average knowledge.
BUSINESS ETHICS
Creating an ethical environment in which fraud is seen as unacceptable is a cost-
effective way of to minimise the risks of fraud. To create an ethical environment, it
is important for top management to set the right tone for the rest of the
organization. Without clearly defined policies, procedures and boundaries, what
constitutes acceptable behavior in an organization become blurred.
Does your organization's internal manuals and written policy
documents contain guidelines about acceptable ethical behavior?
We asked respondents their views on how well fraud and ethics policies and
operational procedures are documented and communicated with the organization.
Most respondents stated that their organization have at least some form of
documentation (78%) containing guidelines about acceptable ethical behaviour.
Do you communicate ethical standards to your employees, suppliers
and customers?
65% of companies communicate ethical standards to its employees, suppliers
and customers.
Is there an ethics officer in your organization?
71% of companies do not have an ethics officer or an ethics committee that can
deal with the ethical issues in the organization.
22 KPMG Forensic
INFORMATION SECURITY
Do you transmit sensitive / private information by means of the following
media?
Respondents indicated the most common methods of transmitting sensitive material to be:
Respondents further indicated that they believed the following methods provided
inadequate security for the transmission of sensitive information:
Despite courier, telephone, fax machine and email (non-internet) having a high percentage
of use, they have a high percentage of inadequate security in the transmittal of sensitive
information. 55% of the respondents indicated that they did not employ caller identification
on telephones, 90% do not use mobile phone encryption, 81% do not use fax encryption
and 65% do not use internet encryption.
Do you consider your computer / information system as a potential security
risk?
When asked on whether computer or information systems are considered as a potential
risk in their organization, 85% of the respondents agreed to that statement while only 15%
disagreed. This is a increase of 8% from the 2002 survey.
16% of repondents stated that more than 70% of the companies documentation are kept
electronically while 25% stated that 50% to 70% of the companies documentation is kept
electronically.
87% respondents cited that they routinely shred or destroy documents in order to dispose
of them.
What procedures are in place to minimize security risk?
Respondents who consider their computerized information systems to be
potential security risks were then asked to identify all the security procedures
they have in place in their organization to minimise these risks. All respondents
stated that they use passwords, 90% use firewalls and 87% have access logs as
part of their computer information security.
Survey participants were asked if they were aware of any financial or information
loss due to security breaches involving their IT System. Of the 130 survey
participants who responded to this question, only 17% of respondents indicated
that a security breach had occurred. The breaches were caused by abuse of
passwords / privileges (55%), lack of segregation of duties (46%), hacking (27%)
and manipulation of weakness in the current IT system (23%).
50% of the breaches were caused by normal users followed by IT staff (32%) and
external hackers (32%).
24 KPMG Forensic
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Procedures to minimize intellectual property fraud
Those respondents who considered their intellectual property to be at risk
indicated the following procedures in place to minimize this risk:
Does your organization have any form of intellectual property?
When asked if companies owned some form of intellectual property, 59%
indicate ownership of some form of intellectual property, while 38% considered it
to be at risk for fraud while 62% considered it to be at no risk.
PROFILE OF FRAUDSTER
A dedicated, intelligent person with sufficient motivation can circumvent any system of control
Respondents were asked to provide statistical information regarding the individual(s) committing fraud against
their organization. Based on the responses provided, the profile of the typical fraudster is:
Male (72%)
26 - 40 years old (54%)
Income range RM15,000 - RM30,000 (36%)
Period of employment 2 - 5 years (46%)
Age profile of fraudster Income profile of the fraudster Period of employment of
fraudster
Motivation for fraud
Fraud will occur if the right combination of worthwhile outcome, opportunity (which effectively is represented
by poor internal controls) and motivation is present. Logically, fraud is more likely to occur when there is strong
motivation for financial gain, in other words, the perpetrator has a strong desire to obtain funds that are, in
many cases, needed for very specific and compelling purposes.
The 2004 survey, for the first time, considered in detail the issue of motivation. The overall results are set out
as follows:
The most common motivating factor by value of loss was greed.
26 KPMG Forensic
INITIAL ACTION IN THE EVENT OF FRAUD
When fraud occurs or is suspected, management is sometimes tempted to resolve
the matter internally. This may expose the organization to significant risk. When you
become aware of incidents or suspicions of fraud in your organization, we recommend
that you consider the following:
Do not
Respond emotionally or act hastily.
Immediately confront the suspects.
Damage or mark any evidence or potential evidence.
Limit the scope of your concerns to a specific issue.
Do
Be objective in your assessment.
Limit the number of people whom you discuss your suspicions.
Carefully preserve any evidence by removing access to documents and electronic
media.
Call in the professionals.
General investigation rules
Preserve the evidence - documents, computers, personal laptops, voicemails,
emails, phone logs, security camera tapes.
Focus on the facts. Be objective. Avoid communicating judgments / conclusions
and making accusations unless evidence has been obtained.
Guard against legal exposures to defamation, libel and slander, and also wrongful
invasion of privacy (through improper searches of desk, lockers, personal storage),
violations of law on audio / videotaping of conversations and the use of threats,
promises, inducements, offers to waive reporting to the authorities or to waive
prosecution in return for co-operation.
Act professionally. Guard against other actions likely to be inconsistent with the
corporate image or damaging to the corporate reputation.
Ensure that disciplinary action does not precede the completion of the investigation
to avoid the risk of making a wrongful termination, losing the suspect's cooperation
and creating a perception of a lack of objectivity.
Always consider how the investigation will be perceived not only the subject but
also by others, both during and after. Consider how it will reflect on the company's
reputation for being ethical, against fraud / illegal acts and for treating its employees
with respect. Inappropriate actions or a poorly conducted investigation can severely
damage employee relations and set back the company's attempts to promote a
law-abiding workplace.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We hope you find the results of this survey as
interesting and as insightful as we do. The response
was extremely satisfying. It is probable, from a
statistical point of view that of the sample of
companies surveyed; those that had experienced a
fraud were more likely to complete the survey. It has
been not possible to follow up on those companies
that did not respond.
To those who participated and contributed their time
towards this survey, we thank you, and for those who
would like to utilize these results as a resource, we
also wish to thank you for your interest in our survey
concerning one of today's major issues.
If you require additional copies of the KPMG Fraud
Survey 2004 report or would like information on how
KPMG can assist your organization to control the risk
of fraud, please contact one of the following
individuals on +60 (3) 2095 3388, by fax on +60 (3)
2094 5986 or by email.
Ooi Woon Chee
wooncheeooi@kpmg.com.my
Dato Mohd Ghazali Bin Yacub
datoghazali@kpmg.com.my
Tan Kim Chuan
ktan@kpmg.com.my
Ruban Murugesan
vm@kpmg.com.my
Sukdev Singh
sukdevsingh@kpmg.com.my
Drummond Siddle
drummondsiddle@kpmg.com.my
KPMG FORENSIC
KPMG Forensic provides an independent, proactive,
responsive service, together with credible forensic
results by applying accounting, financial and other
specialized skill sets to the investigation of alleged
fraud and in resolving commercial and legal disputes.
Our core management team is innovative, flexible and
quality conscious, placing great emphasis on value-
added benefits.
KPMG's Forensic team, comprising accountants,
former police officers, forensic technology technicians
and a lawyer, have the expertise, experience and
enthusiasm to help you investigate any form of
suspected fraud. From sole-practitioner to vast multi-
national conglomerates across all industry sectors,
we have the capabilities to determine the nature and
extent of potential fraud in your organization.
Our products and services cover a wide spectre of
counter fraud and investigative activities which
include:
General fraud investigations
Breach of contract investigations
Quantification of damages
Expert testimony in disputes
Forensically focused due diligence investigations
Corporate intelligence
Forensic technology services
Anti-money laundering services
Digital evidence recovery and preservation
Expert determinations
Professional negligence claims
Royalty audits
Intellectual property disputes / claims
Assi gnments requi ri ng obj ecti ve factual
determination for the purpose of dispute resolution
Arbitration and mediation
Insurance claims
Fraud risk assessments
Fraud awareness training
Fraud risk workshops
Ethics hotline
28 KPMG Forensic
Wisma KPMG
Jalan Dungun, Damansara Heights
50490 Kuala Lumpur
Tel: +60 (3) 2095 3388
Fax: +60 (3) 2095 0971
Email: info@kpmg.com.my
Postal address
P.O. Box 10047
50702 Kuala Lumpur
kpmg.com.my
Contact us Contact us Contact us Contact us Contact us
2005 KPMG, the Malaysian member firm
of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative.
All rights reserved. Printed in Malaysia.
The information contained herein is of a general nature and is not intended to address the circumstances
of any particular individual or entity. Although we endeavor to provide accurate and timely information,
there can be no guarantee that such information is accurate as of the date it is received or that it will
continue to be accurate in the future. No one should act upon such information without appropriate
professional advice after a thorough examination of the particular situation. The content of this publication
is copyright with all rights reserved. Portions may be reprinted with acknowledgement to the firm. We
would appreciate being notified of any reproduction.

Fraud Survey 2004 by PDRM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fraud Survey 2004 by PDRM

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fraud Survey 2004 by PDRM

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the purpose of the fraud survey?

What percentage of respondents acknowledged experiencing fraud in their organization?

Fraud Survey - Malaysia 1

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.