A UTSA High Risk

Ex-employee admits defrauding Columbia University of $180K – March 31, 2009◦ “A former Columbia University science department manager has admitted bilking

the school of more than $180,000 to pay for his Poconos wedding and other personal expenses.” Prosecutors say the manager “signed off on payments for medical studies that were never done. Prosecutors say he also bamboozled Columbia into reimbursing $25,000 in expenses for his wedding at the Skytop Lodge in Skytop, Pa.”

Penn State - Charges filed in fraud cases – March 18, 2009◦ “the three employees are alleged to be responsible for defrauding the University out

of more than $65,000 through unauthorized use of purchasing cards, filing false expense reports, appropriating University property and other means.”

Georgia System - Administrator steals $350,000 on P-card – January 25, 2008◦ “a Tech administrator had charged as much as $350,000 to Tech in national grant

funds over a six-year period.”◦ Examination ordered by the USG chancellor found the “P-card program had little

oversight. Missing receipts, poor documentation and the oversight problems were found to be the norm in many organizations.”

Reputation

Required for assurance of sub-certifications

Reliability of financial statements

Monetary loss

Identify Risks (completed)

Management Plans (completed)

Inspections/QARs (completed)

Report to ECC

Not safeguarding departments assets

Cash receipts are misappropriated

Department funds used for personal purposes

Business related transactions that are inappropriate

Provides management with assurance that internal controls in a department are in place and are operating effectively

Validates the responses to the management certifications

Validates the responses in the financial sub-certification

Segregation of duties and cash handling

Purchasing

Capital assets management

Gifts

Human Resources

Emergency Preparedness

Information Security

Account administrators are selected based on a risk assessment of several criteria: ◦ Level of expenditures and revenues◦ Audit and QAR history◦ Organizational change/turnover◦ Receipt of cash or checks◦ Fiscal Management Sub-certification

responses◦ Management Certification concerns◦ Requested by VP

QAR results are provided to the account administrator and their immediate supervisor

The VP is also provided a final overall summary report of all QARs completed in their area

QARs that contain a significant overall risk level are scheduled an on-site follow-up in 90 days

Reports of all significant findings are given to the Institutional Fraud Officer (VPBA) and the Financial Reporting Officer

What do the Dots mean?◦ Significant departure from university policy,

procedures and/or best practices

◦ Moderate departure from university policy, procedures and/or best practices

◦ Compliant with or non-significant departure from university policy, procedures and/or best practices

◦ ! Important Information