Technology, along with weak internal controls, has become an enabler for fraudulent activity. However, companies could be doing more to fight back with technology, a new report by advisory firm KMPG has found.

Some 24% of the 750 fraudsters across 81 countries currently under forensic investigation had leveraged technology for their gains, while only 3% of the fraudsters were detected through proactive analytics.

“The double-edged sword of technology in fraud is only going to get sharper. As technology becomes more advanced, so do the schemes to use it maliciously. And while it’s clear that fraudsters are all too comfortable making use of technology to perpetrate fraud, we are seeing little evidence that companies are doing the same to prevent it,” said KPMG global head of investigations Phil Ostwalt.

The research showed that, of those using technology to commit fraud, 24% created false or misleading information in accounting records, 20% provided false or misleading information through email or other messaging platforms and 13% involved perpetrators abusing permissible access to computer systems.

However, weak internal controls were a factor for 61% of fraudsters (30% in South Africa), while the number of fraudsters able to commit acts because of weak controls had increased nearly 10% to 27%.

“Even if controls are strong, fraudsters can and do evade them or override them. Colluders were able to circumvent strong controls in 11% of global and 18% of South African cases; an additional 21% globally and 42% locally had recklessly defrauded with no regard for the controls,” KPMG noted.

In many of the cases reviewed, up to 70% of the investigated fraudsters were between the ages of 36 and 55, 65% were employed by the company and were likely to have colluded with others in 62% of the global cases and 73% of the South African cases.

Forty-four per cent of the fraudsters investigated globally, and 61% in South Africa, had “unlimited authority” in their company and were able to override controls.

While personal gain was the predominant overriding motivation for fraudsters, greed was the second most common factor and the sense of ‘because I can’ was third.