When the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) conducted its first Report to the Nation in 1996, one of the purposes was to describe the typical occupational fraud perpetrator. In 1996, our results showed that the typical fraudster was a college-educated, married, white, male employee. While some consistencies remain, much has changed in recent years.
When the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) conducted its first Report to the Nation in 1996, one of the purposes was to describe the typical occupational fraud perpetrator. In 1996, our results showed that the typical fraudster was a college-educated married white male employee. Men committed nearly 75% of the offenses.
In the 2002 edition of the study, not much had changed. The typical perpetrator was still a male employee aged 41–50 (note that this edition did not ask for the fraudsters’ marital status or race). However, this edition showed that the majority of perpetrators had a high school education or less, which varied from the previous study. Additionally, the gap between male and female perpetrators was much narrower, with only 53.5% of cases being primarily perpetrated by men. This report also introduced the question of criminal history, which revealed that most perpetrators had no known criminal history of ever being charged or convicted of a fraud-related offense.
In 2008, the Report to the Nation included a new section describing the red flags that perpetrators exhibited. This continues to be one of the most consistent portions of the report from year to year. In 2008, the top eight documented red flags included:
Since the introduction of red flags into the report, these eight remain the most common red flags — although the order of frequency has alternated over the years. Living beyond means and financial difficulties have been the top two most common red flags in each report.
Like previous editions, the most recent report asked for demographics of the primary perpetrator in each case. Occupational Fraud 2024: A Report to the Nations showed that perpetrators were statistically most likely to be:
Additionally, most perpetrators had no documented history of charges or convictions of fraud-related offenses (87% of cases) or employment-related disciplinary actions for fraud (85% of cases).
While the profile of the typical offender has remained mostly consistent, it should be noted that not all offenders fit into this demographic. The typical perpetrator varies depending upon many factors, including the organization’s industry, location, age, etc. The results of our analyses are derived from the cases that our survey participants reported.
Our research paints a clear and sobering picture: fraud knows no boundaries. Perpetrators can emerge from any demographic, role or industry, defying assumptions and stereotypes. No organization is untouchable, and no individual is beyond scrutiny. For fraud examiners, this serves as a critical reminder: vigilance and unbiased investigation are the keys to uncovering the truth no matter where it may hide.
