Nicht entdeckter Betrug und Unregelmäßigkeiten im Zielunternehmen

Definition

Corporate due diligence checklists in Australia stress review of corporate structure, capitalisation, material assets, contracts and financial records in M&A transactions.[4] However, traditional financial due diligence is not a full forensic audit; it typically focuses on validating headline numbers and key contracts. LOGIC: In the absence of targeted forensic tests—such as journal‑entry analytics, related‑party transaction review, and supplier/employee master data analysis—fraud schemes like false vendors, inflated expenses, or skimming of cash receipts can persist undetected for years. For SMEs with annual turnover of AUD 5–20m, occupational fraud studies commonly report median losses in the 0.5–2% of revenue range over the fraud period. Applied to a 3‑year look‑back, an acquirer could easily inherit AUD 100k–1m of cumulative loss and then incur additional legal and investigation costs once irregularities are discovered post‑completion. Because due diligence in practice may only sample transactions, such schemes can survive a standard M&A review.

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Australian holding companies risk inheriting undetected fraud losses of AUD 100,000–1,000,000 per acquired entity when due diligence does not test journals, bank reconciliations and related‑party dealings. Automated anomaly detection and forensic analytics across general ledger and bank data can surface these schemes before signing.

Affected Stakeholders

Group CFO, Head of Risk & Audit, M&A / Corporate Development Lead, Board / Audit Committee

Related Business Risks