When it comes to reducing fraud loss and duration, companies should fight fraud actively. Active detection methods (such as surprise audits or data monitoring) are far more effective than passive methods (such as confessions or notification by police). This was a major finding of the latest Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) Report to the Nations: 2018 Global Study on Occupational Fraud and Abuse. Yet many companies fail to use active methods to their full potential. Active vs. passive detection The ACFE study found that frauds detected using passive methods tend to last longer and produce larger losses than those detected by such active methods as: IT controls, Data monitoring and analysis, Account reconciliation, Internal audit, Surprise audits, Management review, and Document examination. These active methods of detection...