What it means
Traditional fraud checks relied on sampling, which works well for testing whether a process is generally sound but is poor at catching deliberate concealment. Someone hiding fraud will keep individual amounts small and unremarkable, so the odds of a random sample landing on them are low.
Analytics flips the approach by testing the complete population and letting the exceptions rise to the top. The tests themselves are usually simple in concept.
Common ones include matching supplier bank details against employee bank details, flagging invoices just below an approval threshold, finding duplicate payments, and looking for journal entries posted at unusual hours or on the last day of a reporting period. Statistical tests add a second layer.
Benford's Law, for example, describes how leading digits are distributed in naturally occurring financial figures, and a sharp deviation in a set of expense claims or invoices is a signal that some numbers were invented rather than recorded. The business case is straightforward: detection cost falls while coverage rises.
Running the same set of tests monthly also has a deterrent effect, because staff who know every transaction is examined behave differently from staff who assume only a sample is reviewed. The important nuance is that analytics produces suspicion, not proof.
Every flagged item needs human judgement, and a team that treats a red flag as a verdict will damage relationships with honest employees and suppliers while learning nothing about the actual control weakness.
In practice
Real-world examples.
Example
A logistics company matches its employee master file against its supplier master file on bank account number. Two matches appear, one an innocent case of a former employee now trading as a contractor, and one a fictitious supplier set up by a payments clerk.
Example
A hospital group tests every expense claim for round numbers and finds that one manager submitted 47 taxi claims in a year, all for exactly $40 and all just under the $50 receipt threshold. The claims were never fabricated in a single large sum, which is why three years of sampling had missed them.
Example
A software firm reviews journal entries posted after 10pm in the final three days of each quarter. The report highlights a recurring set of revenue entries reversed early the following month, which prompts a wider review of how sales were being recognised.
Think of it
“Data analytics fraud detection uses computers to find suspicious patterns-automated detection.
Formula
Calculation
Benford's Law expected proportion of leading digit d = log10(1 + 1/d)
This gives 30.1% for a leading digit of 1, falling steadily to 4.6% for a leading digit of 9. A leading digit of 4 is expected in about 9.7% of figures.
An internal audit team runs the test across 8,000 supplier invoices from one purchasing region. Expected count of invoices starting with the digit 1 = 30.1% x 8,000 = 2,408, but only 1,600 are observed, a shortfall of 2,408 - 1,600 = 808.
Expected count of invoices starting with the digit 4 = 9.7% x 8,000 = 776, yet 1,584 are observed, an excess of 1,584 - 776 = 808. The pattern points at a cluster of invoices in the $4,000 to $4,999 range, which turns out to sit just below a $5,000 approval threshold, and follow up work shows one buyer had been splitting larger orders to stay under it.Case study
Seen in the real world.
This is an illustrative and clearly fictional scenario. Brackenfield Foods, an invented food distributor with 900 staff, had a small internal audit team that sampled 60 supplier payments a quarter and had never found anything material. Its finance director assumed that meant nothing material existed.
In the fictional account, a new analyst loaded three years of payment data, roughly 340,000 transactions, into a spreadsheet tool and ran four tests over a fortnight: duplicate payments, invoices just under approval limits, weekend payment runs and supplier bank details matching employee records. The duplicate test alone recovered $214,000 of genuine overpayments that suppliers had never mentioned, which more than paid for the exercise before any fraud question arose.
The approval threshold test then flagged one depot manager with an unusual concentration of invoices between $4,000 and $4,999. The subsequent investigation found a related party supplier, and Brackenfield changed its approval structure so that a second signature was required on any cumulative spend with a single supplier rather than on individual invoices.
Watch out
Common mistakes.
- Treating every analytics exception as confirmed fraud, when most flagged items turn out to be data entry errors, system quirks or entirely reasonable business decisions.
- Running tests once as a project and never repeating them, which loses both the trend information and the deterrent effect of continuous monitoring.
- Assuming expensive specialist software is required, when the highest value tests can usually be run in a spreadsheet or basic database query.
Questions
People also ask.
Does this replace an external audit?
No, an external audit gives an opinion on the financial statements as a whole, while fraud analytics is a targeted internal exercise aimed at specific risks.
What data should a first time user start with?
The accounts payable ledger and the expense claim file, because they combine high transaction volume with a well understood set of red flags.
Is Benford's Law reliable on its own?
It is a screening tool rather than evidence, and it works poorly on data with imposed limits such as prices set at $9.99 or capped daily allowances.
From the founder's library
Take it further with the book.
Build your financial confidence beyond this definition. Shihan's full-length guide, Accounting Fundamentals, takes the same plain-English approach and turns it into a complete, practical playbook for non-finance managers, business owners and students - with chapter-end quiz answers and presentation slides included.
25% off with code MMHQ25, applied at checkout. Priced in USD - checkout may show the equivalent in your local currency.
View the book and save 25%