Tag Archives: KPMG

On the Record

gifts-for-christmas-fmkcvb0u

I first wrote about Scott London in April 2013, soon after he had been arrested on insider trading charges. He was sentenced to 14 months in prison and was released early, for good behavior, earlier this year. I was listening to my regular Planet Money podcast last week and, like an awesome Christmas gift, they were interviewing Scott London about what he did and why he did it.

London spoke about how, when he was an audit partner at KPMG, he started sharing non-public information on his clients with a golfing buddy. It is not as though London did not know that what he was doing was both unethical and illegal. He speaks about how much training KPMG gave to employees, training that he himself gave at times. Yet, when his friend’s business was struggling and his friend asked for just a little help, Scott London was able to rationalize what he did. In his mind, the money that Bryan Shaw, the friend, was making was small and this made what he was doing not so bad. This is something that happens often in fraud stories. Most frauds start small, either because the fraudster is testing the waters or because the fraudster initially intends to just take a little to cover their perceived need. It is generally because the initial idea of a fraud is small so it does not seem like a big deal and will not hurt anyone. it is a good reminder that when you are looking into or for fraud, you should not just look for large amounts. The fraudsters are going to do what they can to stay under the radar and many are going to be committing in ways that minimize, in their minds, what they are doing.

All in all, Shaw paid London about $70,000 in cash and gifts, while Shaw made $1.27 million from the insider trading. I was amused to hear London’s shock at how much money Shaw made trading on the information that he got from London. You see, when Shaw asked for the tips, he proposed that they share the money equally. It was funny that London was shocked to find out that the person who had partnered with him in an illegal pursuit had been less than honest with him. I suppose he had not heard that there is no honor among thieves. I am not sure if he was surprised because he realized how much more money he should have been paid or if he thinks he would have nipped the insider trading in the bud had he known just how much money was at stake (making the crime a bigger deal than he imagined).

During the podcast, the Planet Money folk discussed whether insider trading is a victimless crime. They struggled to find who is hurt by the trading. They came to their conclusions about who is hurt and you can also read various others opine. When I look at insider trading and think about who can be seen as victims, I have a long list. If you are competing in what you believe is a level playing field but where some parties know more than you do, it is just about a given that those parties are going to beat you every time. And, in this day and age where many retirement and savings plans involve trading on the stock market, why would you even bother if you knew that there were people making lots of money, primarily because they had inside information that you were not privy to?

There are so many layers in the Scott London story that could fill a book and, one such book, by James Ulvog, about Scott London’s fraud is well worth a read. Hearing from Scott London himself was a great gift and is a lesson in insider trading, tone at the top, how easily a fraud can begin and the consequences of taking the path that he took. Thank you Santa and Planet Money!

Advertisements
Tagged , , , , , ,

Way Outside The Box

Image

Shock Absorber

I studied economics in college and in class we learned a lot of theories about things like supply & demand, consumption, and maximizing utility. Those lessons came with graphs and diagrams that were all very logical and pretty to look at. To know that there was an explanation for everything was both exciting and comforting. Learning that a change in the money supply would result in a provable response from the market was a powerful lesson. Everything worked just so, and followed the lines of the diagrams. The power of economics was amazing – all very logical, like a math problem (I also studied math and statistics, so I enjoyed how everything fell in place). It all made sense!

After college, I spent a few years in Zimbabwe and, during that time, I did a stint at an investment bank. I had studied various aspects of economics including micro- and macroeconomics, econometrics and neoclassical theory and so I was ready to step into my analyst position where I took market information and used it to explain and predict market activity. What I found, however, was that sometimes things worked according to the models that I created and the other times the market went rogue. When that happened I was stumped. What was wrong with the people? Why didn’t they act according to the graphs and predictions? Why weren’t they behaving in a logical manner? I wasn’t sure at times, whether to be upset with the people or with the economic theory that didn’t sufficiently warn me about the propensity of people to do what they are not supposed to do.

I left the bank to work in audit, at Deloitte. Just before I started there, an incident had occurred. A client, who was committing fraud, offered the audit manager a bribe to ignore the fraud and issue a clean audit report. When the manager refused to accept the bribe, the client tried to kill the manager. At work, my fellow employees were puzzled by this behavior – for one thing, it would have made more sense to try to bribe the audit partner, as that was who would sign off on the audit report. Was this client’s plan to kill every manager who took over the audit until he found one who was willing to not only take the bribe but also convince the audit partner that the books were fairly stated? It didn’t make sense.

I have found over the years that, unlike most of my mathematics problems, there are many incidents where human behavior does not make sense. A recent example is Scott London, a former senior KPMG partner who, although he earned a seven-figure salary, gave away insider information to his golfing buddy in exchange for a watch and jewelry that he could have bought himself and for about $50,000, cash that was small change in comparison to what he earned. He risked his career, reputation and, possibly, freedom for no good reason.

Why would he do that? It is a question that comes up just about every time a fraud is exposed. We are shocked by the lengths that people go to in order to defraud businesses and what they are willing to risk in their schemes and it is very likely that the fraudsters bank on our unwillingness to believe that anyone could do what they are doing. Often a fraud goes on for a long time because even when someone suspects that something is amiss, they cannot get their minds to go to the place the fraudster occupies. We have preconceived ideas of what a criminal is and so there are many that we don’t suspect:

  • We can’t believe that someone who has been a longtime, respected member of our community could steal from us.
  • We are stunned to discover that a friendly and fun coworker is defrauding the company.
  • In cases such as that of Rita Crundwell, the fraudster is the kind person who helps out when we are in trouble. How could that person be embezzling money?
  • The person fleecing the company could be the person who wins employee of the year awards because they put in long hours, never take vacation time and are always doing more than is expected of them.

At times, in order to see fraudulent behavior, we have to first shrug off our preconceived notions of what kind of person will commit these actions. In this way, we won’t shrug off any red flags or odd moments. Many times after a fraud is uncovered we hear people say things like:

  • He would say things sometimes and I would think maybe I heard him incorrectly;
  • I just assumed she had inherited money from a relative who had passed away;
  • When he started explaining things, he made it sound so complicated that I decided maybe I thought something was wrong because it was too difficult for me to understand.

Humans are odd creatures. We have the power of choice and sometimes that means that a person will make a choice that is absolutely illogical to you. For instance women will wear shoes that break their bones and disfigure their feet and, not only will they wear these shoes, but they will also play hundreds of dollars, sometimes thousands, for these foot-deforming shoes. For many, there is no good reason to destroy your feet in the name of cute shoes but for many others it makes enough sense for them to do it. I know this as a runner who has seen how wrecked we look at the end of a race – bleeding body parts, hobbling, missing toenails – and yet how absolutely triumphant we are. We often don’t make sense.

At times when things pop up that we don’t make sense, we need to be able to keep from thinking that the error is with us. Instead of creating explanations that make sense to us, at times it is important to step outside our boxes and open our minds to the possibility of the unimaginable. If it appears off, it may well actually be off and not be your imagination. It turns out that no one is too smart, too rich or too nice to commit fraud.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Hey, That’s My Stuff!

Image

I have written before about the fraud triangle and how the three elements, pressure, opportunity and rationalization, tend to be the factors that drive a person to commit fraud. Well, a few days ago, my husband and I were talking about Scott London and his insider trading charges. We began discussing the issues in relation to the fraud triangle – what was the pressure that he felt and how did he rationalize his actions? The opportunities for him to pass information on to his friend were, as far as he was concerned, quite plenty as he was operating outside of the system in which he worked and its established controls. However, he had not fully factored in the FBI and the SEC and their activities to attempt to thwart fraud.

My husband then said – but how do you really take away the opportunity? I don’t understand how you can really stop someone from trying to steal. That is true, however, you can put in safeguards to make it very difficult for the theft to occur, I responded. My husband, a photographer, is in the process of moving into a new studio space so I decided to use this as a way to explain my point.

Before moving his equipment and furniture into the space, my husband spent a lot of time thinking about the security in the building he is moving into. He walked around the premises, noting where the security office was located, in relation to his studio; he took a look at the various points of entry into the space and assessed how easy it would be for someone to gain unauthorized access; and he looked at the building and what security it came with. Armed with this information, he then sat down and made a plan. He researched alarm systems, door and window locks and various barriers to entry of his studio. Also, within his studio, he took steps to further secure his equipment with lock-boxes, storage containers and other measures. This, I told him, is how you attempt to take away the opportunity. He could have moved into the office spaces as is, without taking any steps to secure his space and its contents, but he did not. He took the time and energy to dissuade a potential intruder from entering his space. By making it as difficult has possible for someone to get into his space, he is working to break the triangle.

Controls to protect ones assets can be physical, as with the studio space, or procedural, as with an authorization process for processing checks in an accounts payable department. In both cases, they are very important when it comes to trying to break the fraud cycle and prevent theft, insider trading or whatever the crime of the day is.

Tagged , , , , , ,

Who’s Toning the Top?

Image

This week, Scott London, a KPMG ex-partner was busted. It was the getting busted that resulted in him going from partner to ex-partner. It turns out that, for several years, Scott London had been passing on non-public information about at least two of his clients, Herbalife and Skechers, to a golfing buddy, Bryan Shaw. Shaw then used this information to make over a million dollars on the stock market. London was caught during an FBI sting that included a photo of him receiving a bag of money from Shaw in a parking lot. A parking lot. Straight out of the movies. It is a very interesting case that is still unfolding. We are learning a lot about how and what happened and perhaps we shall also learn why it happened. Why did this KPMG partner (at the time) decide to share confidential client information with his friend and take expensive gifts and cash, a fraction of his annual salary, for this information? Discovering the motivations will be interesting but right now, this case has me thinking about another issue.

This case brings up, to me, the issue of “the tone at the top”. This is the example that a company’s management sets that may affect how ethically employees may behave. As a CPA, forensic accountant and a former auditor, I know that ethics are a big part of our education and continuing education. The stress on ethics is part of why CPAs have been found to be the most trusted business professionals, according to surveys. In addition to the required ethics continuing education that credentialed forensic accountants, and CPAs, have to complete, laws and firm policies go a long way to trying to ensure that an accounting professional is objective and, in many cases, independent from his or her client. For example, audit firms practice partner rotation with their public company clients. This means that every five years public firms will have a new partner managing their audit. Also, forensic accountants, before accepting an assignment, will run a check to ensure that there is no conflict of interest. Even the appearance of a lack of independence can result in people not trusting their accountant, whether that accountant is performing an audit or forensic services.

There are many rules and regulations to try to maintain the integrity of the accounting profession but as partners are at the top of the totem pole, it is very important to know who is watching those at the top? What is being done to make sure that those at the top are not abusing their positions of power by compromising their ethics. The evidently casual way that Scott London shared confidential information with his golf buddy implies that he either did not believe that there would be significant consequences if he were caught or that he would not get caught at all. Although he took his actions outside of the control systems created by the audit firms which include the disclosure of investments to prevent a conflict of interests, there were the investigations by other agencies, the FBI in this case, that flagged Shaw’s suspicious trades. That is a comfort. Hopefully, as this case and story unfold we will have the full power of the law descend upon London for his insider trading. In addition to the charges being leveled against London by the FBI and the SEC, KPMG has stated that it will be bringing legal actions against London. It should be more than lip service. KPMG and other CPA firms must realize that how they deal with their most powerful and senior practitioners goes a long way to ensuring that they remain trusted and held in high esteem.

Granted, every profession will have bad apples – unscrupulous people who have little regard for the profession. When it comes to being a CPA, a license where members agree to practice according to very high standards, it is imperative that those who are caught violating the code of conduct and the law are dealt with strictly. Partners of the Big Four accounting firm are more in the spotlight than other accountants and it should be clear that a position of power does not exempt one from discipline – in fact, the position of power should mean that you are more disciplined.

Finally, according to the United States Golf Association, London has a handicap of 10 and Shaw’s handicap is 12. Generally, a lapse in honesty tends to extend beyond just one event. A person who is gaming one system is likely gaming others. It is probably a good idea to check on that handicap, though I doubt either of those two men will be playing golf any time soon (at least I hope they are too busy paying for their behavior to do so).

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