Who Runs Things?

Image

James Petrozzello

The tone at the top of an organization is vitally important. If the people running things are behaving in an unethical manner, how can one expect the rest of the firm to operate any better? If you are working at a company and you get the message that leadership is for those who operate without regard to the rules, then wouldn’t the probability be high that you would either leave or start breaking the rules yourself? Often when a leader of a company is caught breaking the law, stories follow about a culture of bad behavior at that company.

Craig Haber became a partner, based in New York, at Grant Thornton in 1993. In 2004, he opened a business checking account in the name of a company with a name very similar to Grant Thornton. Then, between 2004 and July 2012, Haber deposited $3.97 million in checks made out to Grant Thornton into the fraudulent account that he had opened. That is eight years of funneling almost $4 million in company funds into his personal account. How Haber managed to do this shows how he got the opportunity to take advantage of weaknesses in the Grant Thornton control system in order to perpetrate his fraud.

When Grant Thornton sends out bills to its clients, it attaches a page to the bill with instructions on how to either wire money into their account or send a check to their Chicago office, which is where their head office and billing department are located. Beginning in 2004, Haber would send billing statements to some clients and, instead of the usual payment instruction sheet, Haber instructed the clients to send payments to “Craig B. Haber”, in care of Grant Thornton, at the Grant Thornton New York offices. He also sent these payment instructions to some clients via email. When he received these payments, he deposited the bulk of them into the fraudulent account that he had opened. He got around the discrepancies by telling Grant Thornton that he had collected lower fees than what he actually collected.

It appears that Craig Haber had too much access to the billing system. In a company, seniority is no reason for reduced controls. Seniority should be a greater incentive for implantation of controls. Because it tends to be more difficult for an employee to say no to a higher up in a company, it is important that a system is built that says no on the employee’s behalf. All bills should have come from the billing department and the billing department should have sent clients billing statements detailing a running balance detailing payments received over a period of time. If that had been the case, some clients would have contacted Grant Thornton to find out why some of their payments were not reflected on their statement.

Grant Thornton should also have worked to limit what payments went to the partners, instead of being sent directly to the billing department. It is a challenge, but an occasionally reminding a client to send payments to the Chicago office may have gone a long way in reducing how much was stolen by Haber.

The fraud of almost $4 million translates into many billing hours that Haber was short on. I am not sure how he explained this shortfall but there should be a way to verify this for partners, in the same way that, I am sure, there is a way to verify billable hours for other employees of Grant Thornton.

Craig Haber received the Grant Thornton payments, which he then redirected to his personal account, via the US Postal Service. Therefore, when Grant Thornton discovered the fraud and reported it, the investigation was carried out by the US Postal Inspection Service and headed by Postal Inspector Melissa Atkin. True to the elements of the fraud triangle, Haber claimed that he started defrauding Grant Thornton because of financial pressure and, as you can see, he took full advantage of the opportunity to take money from the company. Haber was charged with and convicted of mail fraud and faces both a fine and prison time.

Being at the top in his firm did not stop Haber from committing fraud and perhaps being at the top of his firm meant that he was able to perpetrate his fraud without detection for longer. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) has found that fraud by those higher up in an organization tends to be greater in value and to go on for a longer period of time. Being a CPA, who is supposed to practice according to a Code of Professional Conduct and uphold certain ethical standards, makes Haber’s crime even more disappointing. He stands to lose his CPA license, in addition to the jail time and fines. I would not be surprised if Craig Haber’s behavior had ripple effects among those that he supervised and dealt with, including a decrease in morale, cynicism about adherence to the code of conduct for CPAs and perhaps even bad behavior. If the people in charge are not minding the store, who will?

UPDATE

On March 12, 2014, Craig Haber was sentenced to 4 1/2 years in prison for stealing almost $4 million from Grant Thornton. During the time he was stealing that money, he earned nearly $6.9 million. Just goes to show that some people never have enough money. Now he gets to think about whether those millions were worth it. I, personally, would say no.

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One thought on “Who Runs Things?

  1. […] – The F Student – Who Runs Things? – Summary of former Grant Thornton partner who siphoned $3.94M of client payments to his own […]

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: