More than one in three organisations(36%) experienced economic crime in the last two years, with cybercrime affecting almost a third (32%), as revealed by PwC’s Global Economic Crime Survey 2016. However, detection and response plans are not keeping pace with the level and range of threats now facing organisations, with a potential trend in fraud detection of too much being left to chance.
PwC’s Global Economic Crime Survey 2016:
Economic crime evolving, preventative measures lagging
PwC’s Global Economic Crime Survey 2016interviewed over 6,000 participants in 115 countries. Despite the marginal decline in the rate of economic crime reported overall (down 1% from 2014 to 36%), the financial cost of each fraud is on the rise. In fact, 14% of respondents experienced losses of more than $1m in the last two years.
Cybercrime keeps rising
•Asset misappropriation, cybercrime, and bribery and corruption top the list of most wide-spread economic crimes. Most notably, the rate of cybercrime incidents jumped 8% on 2014 to 32% -the highest level in six years.
•Within two years, six of the G20 (UK, USA, Italy, France, Canada and Australia) expect cybercrime to be the largest economic crime threat to their organisation.
•By sector, financial services reported the highest level of cybercrime, followed by communications, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, insurance, and government-and state-owned entities.
Business preparation is not keeping pace
This year’s Global Economic Crime Survey points to the disquieting fact that too many organisationsare leaving first response to their IT teams without adequate intervention or support from senior management and other key players. Only 37% of respondents reported having a fully operational incident response plan in place. Almost a third have no plan at all, with 14% of respondents not even intending to implement one.
Obstacles to tackle
Data quality, skills, resources, and board level engagement, were amongst the recurring issues respondents cited, which combined, are leaving many organisation’sdetection and control programmesunable to adequately protect an organisation.
The report also highlights significant gaps between organisationswith a code of conduct in place (86%) and those with regular training or advice in place (64%). It warns that such perception gaps can create potential vacuums “within which unethical activities can spring.”