Measure your internal anti-fraud strategy with the ACFE’s 2025 in-house investigation teams benchmarking report

Findings from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners’ (ACFE) In-House Fraud Investigation Teams: 2025 Benchmarking Report show that internal fraud teams want more investigative personnel, effective training and resources. Company leaders and anti-fraud professionals alike may use the findings from this report to evaluate their investigative efforts, identify areas for improvement and plan future anti-fraud strategies.

Certified Fraud Examiners (CFEs) who are part of in-house fraud investigation teams have probably noticed an increase in caseload over the past five years, according to new data from the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners’ (ACFE) In-House Fraud Investigation Teams: 2025 Benchmarking Report. Among its many findings, the report charts the evolution of investigators’ caseloads over time. When ACFE researchers compared this year’s results to those of the 2019 report, they found that the percentage of investigators working 10 or more cases at any given time has grown from 28% in 2019 to 33% in 2024. ACFE Research Director Mason Wilder, CFE, tells Fraud Magazine, “I think this is likely a reflection of the increased volumes of fraud that many organizations are facing, as well as the adoption of technological tools that flag more potential fraud for follow-up investigation.”

When examining caseload volume handled by in-house investigation teams, the report shows variation based on company size and industry. Half of respondents said that teams investigated fewer than five cases at any given time. The greatest average caseloads were in religious, charitable or social services (24 per fraud investigator), as well as the health care (21 per fraud investigator) and mining (21 per fraud investigator) industries. Across all industries, investigators closed 51% of cases within 30 days, which represents a decrease in overall efficiency. In 2019, 59% of in-house fraud investigation teams closed cases in 30 days or less.

Organizations typically employ three investigators for every 1,000 employees on staff. Additionally, investigation teams are almost 50% larger in 2025 compared to 2019. However, from 2019 to 2024, organizations haven’t increased their training budgets per investigator to meet the growing demand. The report also shows that 2025 training budgets vary by industry. For example, the energy industry provides the greatest amount of funding, with an average training budget of $4,000 per investigator per year. Retail organizations have the smallest average annual training budget per investigator at $1,150.

These and other findings from this report demonstrate that the demand for investigative personnel, effective training and resources has grown over time. The report equips corporate leadership with data to help assess the structure, priorities and performance of their anti-fraud programs; evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of various initiatives; and identify opportunities for adjustments or improvements. With this information, companies can benchmark their in-house fraud-fighting capacity against other organizations in their industry and foster environments in which fraud team members are prepared to handle any challenges.

The making of the report

In August 2024, 77,451 ACFE members received a 29-question survey. Responses from 762 members were ultimately analyzed in the report. Survey respondents represent 22 industries, but most respondents work in banking and financial services (27%) or government and public administration (18%). Respondents are from all global regions, but the largest percentage (44%) represented U.S.- or Canada-based companies. Additionally, respondents worked for companies of varying sizes, with 37% employed at an organization with 1,000 to 9,999 employees, and approximately one-quarter each at organizations with 100 to 999 employees (25%) and more than 10,000 employees (24%).

Wilder tells Fraud Magazine that the report is meant to give people more information and context to help inform their decisions about resource allocation for an in-house team. “I don’t think I’ve ever met a fraud investigator or examiner who told me their team has all the financial backing, all the personnel and all the time they need.”

Wilder adds that managers or supervisors may use this year’s findings to address resource allocation in ways that improve their teams, including:

• Attending to employee morale and needs, including celebrating or rewarding employee successes and asking employees what they need to do their jobs better.
• Technological tools that enhance investigations or make them more efficient.
• Organizational leadership and staffing support that ensures sufficient personnel dedicated to fraud investigation.

In-house versus outsourced tasks

The report also identifies investigative tasks that companies outsource to other entities and those they keep in-house. The results showed that cryptocurrency/digital-asset tracing is most often outsourced, with 50% reporting that they outsource all these tasks. Only 20% of companies reported that they always handle cryptocurrency/digital-asset tracing internally. Companies commonly outsource computer/digital forensics and language translation tasks, as well.

Based on these findings, Wilder recommends that anti-fraud professionals expand their investigative knowledge by learning to use and understand the different types of data analysis, artificial intelligence, blockchain, cryptocurrency and digital asset technologies in their personal and professional development. Having those skills, he says, will help set anti-fraud professionals apart in a competitive job market. “It certainly wasn’t surprising for us to see the two sides of the same coin with those skills being less common on existing teams and those being the most commonly outsourced tasks,” he says.

Occasionally, in-house investigation teams examine issues unrelated to fraud, such as discrimination claims, health and safety concerns, and other employee-related issues. About one-third of respondents reported that their in-house team devotes 76% to 100% of its time to fraud investigations, with approximately one-third indicating that they devote up to 25% of time to fraud investigations. Thirty-nine percent of respondents stated that they frequently investigate fraud committed by customers. An almost identical percentage of respondents (38%) stated they frequently investigate employee embezzlement. Nearly all respondents (93%) reported that the in-house team investigates employee embezzlement to some degree, even if rarely.

Team structure and work environment

Although fraud investigation teams varied in the way they operate, survey results found some common traits among teams. For example, 59% of survey respondents stated that their entire team was located near a single company office. Most teams (43%) use a hybrid work model, splitting their time between working in-office and working remotely.

Looking at the investigators themselves, survey respondents reported that almost half (47%) of their team’s investigators hold the CFE designation, but Certified Public Accountant (CPA)/Chartered Accountant (CA) and Certified Internal Auditor (CIA) were also common. The ACFE also analyzed investigators’ average years of experience within various industries. Investigators at health care, other services and energy companies have the highest average years of experience, ranging from 17.2 years to 18.7 years. Investigators averaged 10.9 years of experience across all 22 industries represented in the report.

The report’s findings show that fraud investigation teams are a valuable component of companies’ efforts to increase legal compliance and reduce fraud, waste and abuse. These departments deserve support and recognition for the work they do. “We hope that management and supervisors of in-house investigation teams will use the results of this report to benefit their departments,” Wilder tells Fraud Magazine. “The ACFE is very thankful to the members who provide us with the information we use to develop these reports. We look forward to continuing to provide the public with research like the In-House Fraud Investigation Teams: 2025 Benchmarking Report so we can continue to grow the anti-fraud profession as a whole.”

Emily Homer, Ph.D., CFE, is a research specialist for the ACFE. Contact her at EHomer@ACFE.com.