Category Archives: Fraud

Are Money Launderers Putting Your Trade At Risk?

According to a recent article in the Economist, Trade is the Weakest Link in the Fight Against Dirty Money. And, as a result, your supply chain is threatened. But let’s back up a bit. The article starts off by noting that:

Cuddly toys don’t have to be stuffed with cocaine or cash to be useful to traffickers. A few years ago American customs investigations uncovered a scheme in which a Colombian cartel used proceeds from drug sales to buy stuff animals in Las Angeles. By exporting them to Colombia, it was able to bring its ill-gotten gains home, convert them to pesos and get them into the banking system.

But this is not the only way cartels are abusing trade. For example, we also have mis-invoicing, and the example of:

A front company for a Mexican cartel might sell $1m-worth of oranges to an American importer, while creating paperwork for $3m-worth, giving it cover to send a dirty $2m back home. One group of launderers was reportedly caught exporting plastic buckets that cost $970 each from the Czech Republic to America.

And now, to make matters worse, as chronicled in Drug Cartels are ruining Cinco de Mayo, in addition to using trade to launder dirty money, when they don’t get their way, drug cartels are using violence to take control of high-value shipments, bolstering their ability to not only launder money across borders but control entire commodity markets in a country, which means they make large profits off of their money laundering activities.

So, you have:

  1. Old-Fashioned Laundering where money is converted to products, shipped, sold and converted back to money
  2. Mis-Invoicing Laundering where money is converted to products, bought low, and sold high
  3. Market-Manipulation Laundering where cartels force products high on the market through demand manipulation so they can buy high, sell slightly higher, and not attract attention because the products are being bought and sold near market price

And each threatens your supply chain.

With old-fashioned laundering, a trading partner could be buying and selling your product to launder money, putting your company at risk of being identified as an accomplice to money laundering.

With mis-invoice laundering, your company is part of the money laundering scheme, which means someone in your company is part of the money laundering scheme, and this could bankrupt your company if the DoJ swoops in and shuts your company down while the mess is sorted out.

With market-manipulation laundering, if you are a buyer or a seller of the product being manipulated, you are affected as your costs can quickly skyrocket and your product lines will be at risk if your competition senses the situation and scoops up available inventory before you do.

Unfortunately, there’s not much you can do on your own except maintain vigilance and make sure that your supply chain is not involved. You do this by way of regular auditors from independent third parties who report not to the people doing the trading and keeping the books, but the CEO and CFO who could be criminally on the hook if the money laundering schemes of terrorist organization are aided and abetted by the company.

Price Fixing is on the Rise. Only the US Can Stop It!

But will it?

As per these recent articles in the Economist on Cartels: Just One More Fix and Boring Can Still be Bad, competition authorities have uncovered several whopping conspiracies in recent years, including one in which more than 20 airlines worldwide had fixed prices on approximately $20 Billion of freight shipments. (In 2010, the European Commission fined 11 Air Cargo Airlines €800 Million for operating a worldwide cartel which affected cargo services within the European Economic area – namely Air Canada, Air France-KLM, British Airways, Cathay Pacific, Cargolux, Japan Airlines, LAN Chile, Martinair, SAS, Singapore Airlines and Qantas.)

In addition, investigators are still unravelling a huge network of cartels among suppliers of a wide range of car parts, including seat belts, radiators, and foam seat-stuffing. And the European Commission recently fined five marks of automative bearings $1.32 Billion and raided a number of manufacturers of car exhaust systems. On the other side of the Atlantic, Brazilian prosecutors have charged executives from a dozen foreign train-makers accused of rigging bids for rail and subway contracts in the country’s main cities.

This is despite the fact that enforcement has gotten tougher, smarter, and more coordinated, the fact that firms can expect staggering fines, and bosses can go to jail … unless they are in the United States. As the latter article states American courts, only too ready to lock up other types of miscreants for a long time, have rarely jailed egregious price-fixers for anything like the maximum of ten years that the law allows. But what do you expect from a country that won’t even jail executives who got caught knowingly laundering Billions for Mexican Narco-Terror Cartels? As per this recent article on BoingBoing, on HSBC Settlement Approved, there were no criminal charges, only 5 weeks’ profit in fines, and deferred bonuses for laundering Billions for Narco-Terrorists. That’s right, they still got their bonuses! (But whatever you do, don’t feed the birds, since you go to jail for feeding birds.)

Until significant mandatory jail sentences are enforced for all executives involved in price-fixing, given the still-low risk of detection, collusion pays. After all, best case is you succeed undetected and make a few Billion. Worst case is you get caught, pay some of your ill-gotten gains in fines, and go back to business.

And stiffer fines aren’t the answer — if fines inflict so much damage on guilty companies, they will undermine competition as new entrants will be afraid to enter the market in fear that their efforts to keep costs in line with the competition will be seen as price fixing that could net them fines that would put them in bankruptcy.

The only answer is stiff prison sentences against executives, and the only major country that is unwilling to pursue them is the country that controls 25% of the global GDP – the US. So while you can do a lot to detect price-fixing and, if possible, avoid it by way of big data, statistical tests, market research, and collaboration with authorities – until the US DoJ and Courts step up and do the right thing, price fixing will likely remain a major problem.

Sole Sourcing In Your Supply Chain: Oversight Or …

An indicator of fraud?

As per a number of Sourcing Innovation posts, and a recent post over on Procurement Leaders on Procurement Fraud: A Shocking Wake-Up Call, procurement is a ripe area for occupational fraud. Outside of Accounts Payable, Procurement generally controls or influences the most organizational spend.

And not only is Procurement Related Fraud on the Rise, but it is taking place at 2 out of every 3 organizations — many of which are even unaware of its presence! Furthermore, every organization affected by fraud is likely losing 2% of its revenues to fraud. Forget overpayments, duplicate payments, and other recovery audit targets that, even when extremely successful, aren’t likely to recover more than 0.5% of your revenue in supplier credits — especially when most of these overpayments can be prevented with good invoice automation. Fraud is the bigger uncontrolled drain on the average organization’s coffers, and the issue that most needs to be attacked.

Fortunately, there are tell-tale signs of fraud, and if you regularly look for, investigate, and take precautions to prevent certain scenarios, the chances of fraud occurring in your organization will be significantly reduced. A number of these signs are succinctly summarized in Mr. Ashcroft’s post on Procurement Fraud: A Shocking Wake-Up Call, referenced above, but it’s the first four that really catch your attention.

  1. Single Source Decisions
  2. Insistence on Sole Contact With Suppliers
  3. Reluctance to Change Suppliers
  4. Refusal to Issue Invitations to Tender

All of these relate to sole-sourcing, which we all know to be a significant supply chain risk as a single disruption can wipe out an entire product line or category. Sole-sourcing should generally only be used when you are producing a new product which involves turning over a lot of proprietary knowledge to the manufacturer, proprietary knowledge upon which your competitiveness is dependent, or when the product requires a new type of technique that only one supplier can currently offer at an affordable price point. Otherwise, for supply assurance and risk mitigation, dual (or tri) supply should be used.

If something is being sole-sourced for which there is no good justification, then the sole-source arrangement should be carefully evaluated as the reason therefore could be fraudulent (or, if not fraudulent, unethical, as the buyer could be choosing that supplier simply because the supplier constantly gives the buyer free tickets to sporting events, free trips to industry conferences, etc.). And if any suggestions to change the supplier meet with unnecessary reluctance or insistence not too, that’s an even bigger indicator that something could be happening under the table.

In other words, when you get right down to it, sole-sourcing is generally not a good decision. When you combine the opportunities it presents for fraud and disruption, the risk is typically too great.

Are You Losing 2% of Your Revenue to Fraud? Are You Sure?

Between two thirds and three quarters of organizations experience fraud every year and the average organization affected by fraud loses 2.0% of revenue in the UK and EU and 1.7% in the US. This means that, even if your organization is not aware of fraud, there’s still a 66%, or more, chance that it is being defrauded. And it should know for sure, one way or the other. Because if fraud isn’t detected, dealt with, and discouraged quickly, you end up with headlines like this:

  • Alibaba.com CEO And COO out because of vendor fraud
    involving over 2,000 suppliers and 100 staff members
  • Former Vodafone employee facing fraud charges
    for the fraudulent requisition of €2.3 million of services
  • The great Sainsbury’s potato fraud:
    Jail for vegetable buyer who took £5 million in bribes

Which all have one thing in common — each of these frauds involved the payment of millions of dollars to fake suppliers. Not over billings, not duplicate billings, fake billings from fake suppliers. A situation that can easily be prevented with a good supplier information management or supplier visibility system that validated the accuracy of the supplier information and the legitimacy of the supplier. If the supplier information management and visibility system cannot validate the existence and legitimacy of the supplier, then AP knows that a detailed manual investigation should be undertaken before the supplier is authorized to submit invoices, and that such authorization should require at least two sign-offs by high-level personnel. This simple process, which is yet another example of the value of supply chain visibility, would prevent fraudulent invoices from non-legitimate suppliers from ever getting in the system and greatly decrease the organization’s exposure to fraud.

And this is only one example of the many types of savings opportunities that good Supply Chain Visibility can bring your organization. For a deeper insight into the other ways in which Supply Chain Visibility can bring your organization recurring year-over-year savings, download SI’s latest white-paper on The ROI of Supply Chain Resiliency: It’s More Than You Think, sponsored by Resilinc. You might be surprised at just how much hidden value you can extract from your Supply Management operations with good visibility and resiliency.

Your Supply Chain Is Only As Safe As the Most Insecure Point

Just like a chain is only as strong as the weakest link, your supply chain is only as safe as the most insecure point – and the surprising thing (to you) is that it’s probably not where you think it is (at least not if you do business the local way).

As per this recent article over on the Logistics Briefing Blog, 2012 is a record breaking year for freight criminals. It was bound to happen sooner or later. As the article points out, with an average electronics shipment valued between 3 Million and 30 Million, these shipments are worth a lot more than most shipments of drugs or even guns, and are more valuable to thieves in more ways than one.

  1. The margins are higher.
    The cost of an operation to steal one of these shipments is typically 10% of the value, or less. It truly is a steal.
  2. The risk are lower.
    Most law enforcement agencies haven’t realized just how attractive these shipments are to criminals.
  3. The downside is much lower.
    If you do get caught, and it’s a first offence, it’s unlikely that you’ll end up in jail (unless the theft was violent and someone got hurt). In comparison, if you’re running drugs, you’re going to jail. Even if it’s just a few ounces of marijuana. (Plus, the chances of being hunted down by a heavily armed SWAT team are miniscule in comparison.)

But what is really going to surprise you is where the crime is picking up. Many of the significant thefts are in the EU! A recent theft in Hungary involved about €3 Million worth of smart-phones. Theft in the Netherlands shot up when the U.K. launched Operation Grafton to reduce thefts in Heathrow. And freight crime in Belgium has increased 90%.

So for those of you worried about India and China, think again. (And, as mentioned in the first paragraph, if you’re willing to do business the traditional way in those countries, and grease a few palms, your cargo will be quite safe. SI is not endorsing this, especially if you’re in the U.S. or the U.K. where such actions might be seen as violating the FCPA or the Bribery Act, but just noting that, statistically these countries are safer to ship in than a number of countries in Europe and can be much safer than just about anywhere in the world with the right preparations. The point is that your first instinct is probably not the right one when it comes to judging safe shipping zones.)