Firms learn how to spot computer cheats

A chartered psychologist this month warned assembled security experts of the tell-tale signs that staff may be engaging in computer fraud.

Dr Felicity Gibling, a chartered occupational psychologist, said US studies of convicted white-collar fraudsters had enabled psychologists to build up a profile of staff most likely to commit fraud, and a list of key indicators managers should watch out for.

Gibling said computer fraud is a significant problem and has affected 60 per cent of Times 1000 companies. She added that a quarter of this fraud is committed by staff in management positions. Reports have suggested that 70 per cent of all computer security breaches are committed by internal staff, and may be due to poor security policies.

In a recent survey, network managers said they felt staff were the weakest link in any security policy.

Gibling stressed the need for managers to be more vigilant. "All that is required for fraud to occur is for good people to do nothing," she said.

The following may be indicators that an employee has a higher propensity to fraud than usual:

• envious or resentful of others
• feels unappreciated
• arrogant and dominant personality
• overtly and deliberately non-conformist
• shows no respect for everyday rules
• has drug, alcohol or gambling problems
• short of cash or has unexplained wealth.

Gibling also told managers that the following may be indicators that an employee is engaged in fraud:

• a series of unexplained instances
• staff member is the only common thread in a chain of events
• opulent lifestyle
• staff member won't take holidays
• staff member is first in, last out
• staff member tends to autonomy
• customers only want to deal with one employee and vice-versa.

"If this sounds familiar, then managers should keep a close eye on the suspected employee, and carefully monitor, audit and appraise them," said Gibling.

However, she acknowledged that some characteristics may be a sign of one-off pressures or simply immaturity rather than criminality. Follow-up interviews should be used to identify whether behaviour is related to events or is a character trait, added Gibling.