Methods of monitoring behavior/activity of an individual associated with an organization

A cooperative arrangement and method to monitor behaviors and other activities by an individual in an organization are disclosed. A personal financial disclosure statement, personal financial records, and other relevant financial data associated with an individual who is associated with, or to be associated with, the organization are obtained. Information is extracted from the personal financial disclosure statement, the personal financial records, and the other relevant financial data and input into a risk assessment algorithm. The risk assessment algorithm operates on the input information and generates risk assessment data. The risk assessment data is evaluated to make a determination of certification with respect to the individual. A decision to certify means that the risk associated with the individual, with respect to committing fraud or some other improper act with respect to the organization, is acceptable. Risk assessment data on a plurality of key individuals within the organization may be generated and evaluated to make a determination of certification with respect to the organization as a whole.

TECHNICAL FIELD

Certain embodiments of the present invention relate to organizational behavior such as, for example, behavior of an individual when operating within a legal entity such as a corporation. More particularly, certain embodiments of the present invention relate to methods of deterring fraud and other improper behaviors of individuals associated with an organization by reducing the risks of financial self-dealing and self-enrichment associated with the people who are responsible for various aspects of the organization.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Corporate fraud is perpetrated by individuals, and a leading fraud indicator is the individual's personal financial behaviors. How an individual earns, saves, invests, manages, and spends money are key factors. Typically, fraud and embezzlement begins with the individual telling himself, “ . . . just this once, I'll pay it back.” But once that line is crossed, the individual rarely turns back. It becomes easier and easier, with the amount embezzled steadily increasing before being detected, if at all.

The core of the problem is a breach of fiduciary duty by the trustees of the investors' interests (i.e., the board of directors and management). A passive, non-independent, and rubber-stamping board of directors made up of members selected by the CEO or chairman of the board is not a guarantee of effective oversight of management actions and conduct.

However, management teams that place personal interests above investor demand for value creation when conducting the affairs of the corporation incur a systemic conflict of interest. In the past, breaches of fiduciary duty by management and boards of directors were sometimes condoned by auditors who lacked independence and possessed limited capability and authority to challenge management.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOA), signed into law on Jul. 30, 2002 was designed to protect America's shareholders and workers and gave the Federal Government new powers to enforce corporate responsibility and to improve oversight of corporate America. This legislation gave new power to prosecutors and regulators seeking to improve corporate responsibility and protect America's shareholders and workers. Among other reforms, the legislation:created a new accounting oversight board to police the practices of the accounting profession;strengthened auditor independence rules;increased the accountability of officers and directors;enhanced the timeliness and quality of financial reports of public companies;barred insiders from selling stock during blackout periods when workers are unable to change their 401(K) plans;created a new securities fraud provision with a 25-year maximum term of imprisonment;directed the Sentencing Commission to review sentencing in white collar crime, obstruction of justice, securities, accounting, and pension fraud cases;required CEOs and Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) to personally certify that financial reports submitted to the SEC fully comply with the securities laws and fairly present, in all material respects, the financial condition of the company;made it a crime to willfully certify any such financial report knowing the same to be false or non-compliant, punishable by up to 20-years in prison;criminalized the alteration or falsification of any document with the intent to obstruct the investigation of any matter within the jurisdiction of a United States Department or Agency;criminalized retaliatory conduct directed at corporate whistleblowers and others; andrequired that audit papers be retained for five years and criminalized the failure to maintain such records.

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act places considerable emphasis on correcting lax corporate governance practices, including:management dealing in an environment full of pervasive conflicts of interest;lack of strict transparency, reliability, and accuracy standards in financial reporting;lack of independence between the key players in corporate governance, beginning with the board of directors, senior management, and auditors;lack of adequate enforcement tools for regulators; andwidespread conflicts of interest influencing securities market transactions.

Addressing the systemic weakness of the corporate governance practices in the post-Sarbanes-Oxley corporate environment requires more than correcting the most visible manifestations of the problem. Weak governance practices are the combined result of several offenders and lax controls over the performance of both management and the board of directors.

Laws and regulations have never been sufficient to guarantee society's welfare or, in this case, improvement in corporate governance standards. In many ways, Sarbanes-Oxley has merely made express the duties and responsibilities of boards, CEOs, and CFOs and taken away from them the ability to point a finger at someone else if fraud and abuse occur at a company covered by Sarbanes-Oxley. However, these duties existed before Sarbanes-Oxley was enacted albeit in less explicit fashion. While it may be comforting to some that Sarbanes-Oxley has eliminated the ability of senior management to claim they did not know or were not aware, this is still unlikely to prevent people from committing the types of fraud and abuse that led to the passage of Sarbanes-Oxley in the first place.

While Sarbanes-Oxley, in its current or future form, will play a necessary role in ensuring that U.S. companies avoid certain excesses, the market and investors should continue to seek out solutions that are driven by market needs that help restore and maintain the confidence of investors in public companies.

Accountability is the key. The owners of America's corporations (i.e., the stockholders) must hold managers, directors, auditors, and market participants accountable. The performance of these groups directly impacts shareholder value. The corporate governance process must be re-engineered into one that guarantees performance excellence by management and the board of directors when performing their agency duties as trustees of shareholder confidence.

Although implementing corporate governance best practices can result in additional operating costs, good corporate governance is not an option but an obligation, if shareholder interest is to be protected. Compliance costs are only a small fraction of the large losses suffered by stockholders because the board and/or executive management did not comply with good corporate governance practices. Sarbanes-Oxley has taken great steps at ensuring proper corporate governance and has put some teeth into board and management penalties for non-compliance.

Sarbanes-Oxley, in its present form, is a good first step in combating abuses. However, additional protections should be put in place which complement Sarbanes-Oxely by more directly addressing those problems which Sarbanes-Oxley, by itself, cannot solve such as, for example, fraud prevention.

Further limitations and disadvantages of conventional, traditional, and proposed approaches will become apparent to one of skill in the art, through comparison of such systems and methods with the present invention as set forth in the remainder of the present application with reference to the drawings.

BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

A first embodiment of the present invention comprises a method to monitor the behavior/activity of an individual associated with an organization. The method includes obtaining a personal financial disclosure statement of an individual person associated with or potentially to be associated with the organization and also obtaining personal financial records and other relevant financial data of the individual person. The method further includes inputting first information from the personal financial disclosure statement, the personal financial records, and the other relevant financial data into a risk assessment algorithm. The method also includes the risk assessment algorithm operating on the first input information and thereby generating first risk assessment data. The method further includes evaluating the first risk assessment data and thereby making a first determination of certification with respect to the individual person.

A second embodiment of the present invention comprises a method to monitor the behavior/activity of individuals associated with an organization. The method comprises obtaining a personal financial disclosure statement, personal financial records, and other relevant financial data for each of a plurality of individual persons associated with the organization. The method further comprises inputting first information from each of the personal financial disclosure statements, each of the personal financial records, and each of the other relevant financial data into a risk assessment algorithm. The method also comprises the risk assessment algorithm operating on the first input information and thereby generating first risk assessment data. The method further comprises evaluating the first risk assessment data and thereby making a first determination of certification with respect to the organization.

A third embodiment of the present invention comprises a method to monitor an individual person of an organization for behavioral risk. The method includes periodically obtaining updated personal financial records and other relevant financial data of an individual person that is currently certified for risk with respect to the organization. The method further includes inputting, into a risk assessment algorithm, updated information from the updated personal financial records and other relevant financial data along with previous information from a previously obtained personal financial disclosure statement of the individual person. The method also includes the risk assessment algorithm operating on the input information and thereby generating updated risk assessment data. The method further includes evaluating the updated risk assessment data and thereby making an updated determination of certification with respect to the individual person.

All individuals who are in a position of materially affecting the financial performance or assets of an organization can apply for certification, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention. The individual completes a financial disclosure statement and gives the certifying entity permission to review their past and/or present financial behaviors for, for example, the past 5 to 10 years depending on position(s) held. If the employee meets the risk criteria, they are certified. Such a certification process helps to drive the right behaviors of individuals.

If, at any time during the certification period, issues of concern are identified, the corresponding event is investigated for accuracy and, depending on the results of the investigation, certification may be suspended, cancelled, re-rated, or left unchanged. The certification entity, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, is an evaluator of risk (preferably an independent evaluator of risk, but possibly a self-policing evaluator of risk). The oversight and independent monitoring of key individuals are provided, thus identifying those most likely to be a fraud risk. Certain embodiments of the present invention use risk models which are based on a complex algorithm of predictive financial modeling, and not on biographical data which could be used for profiling.

These and other advantages and novel features of the present invention, as well as details of illustrated embodiments thereof, will be more fully understood from the following description and drawings.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

As used herein, the term “organization” generally refers to a publicly-held corporation, a non-publicly held corporation, a private business, a for-profit business, a not-for-profit entity, a government entity, an athletic organization, or any other type of organization where it may be desirable to implement embodiments of the present invention. As used herein, the term “agent” refers to any individual person in a position of responsibility and/or trust with respect to an organization, including but not limited to an officer of the organization, an employee of the organization, a member of the board of directors of an organization, a major stockholder of the organization, an athlete, and anyone who has the ability to over-ride governance, policies, procedures, and controls of the organization if they exist, or who has the ability to over-ride public laws or good practices. As used herein, the term “risk” generally refers to the risk associated with the likelihood of an agent to commit fraud or some other improper act with respect to the organization. As used herein, the term “independent” means not associated with another entity in terms of ownership or control.

FIG. 1is a functional block diagram of an embodiment of a cooperative arrangement100to monitor the behavior/activity of an individual associated with an organization, in accordance with various aspects of the present invention. The cooperative arrangement100comprises a certification entity105which includes a risk assessment algorithm110and a certification evaluation process120. The cooperative arrangement100further comprises an underwriting entity130, as an option, and an investigation entity140. The risk assessment algorithm110is adapted to accept information from at least one personal financial disclosure statement150and at least one set of personal financial records160and other relevant financial data. Each personal financial disclosure statement150and each set of personal financial records160and other relevant financial data is associated with one individual person (e.g., an agent of the organization). In accordance with certain embodiments of the present invention, the agent has the choice to proceed or not with the certification process. That is, the agent may or may not give his informed consent to engage in the certifying process and may or may not give permissive use of his financial records and data.

In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the certifying entity105is preferably, but not necessarily, independent of both the individual persons to be certified and the organization. The risk assessment algorithm110operates on the input information from the personal financial disclosure statement(s)150and the set(s) of personal financial records160and other relevant financial data and generates risk assessment data115. The risk that is being assessed is the likelihood that an individual person (i.e., agent) will attempt to commit fraud or other improper actions against the organization. The risk assessment data115is input to the certification evaluation process120. The certification evaluation process120evaluates the risk assessment data115to make a determination of certification170with respect to one of an individual person (e.g., an agent of the organization) or to the organization itself.

If the determination of certification170is “yes” (i.e., to certify), then a record of certification180is created (i.e., the paperwork, record, or computer file verifying that the person is certified), for the individual person or the organization. This may or may not take the form of issuing a certificate of certification. As an option, the underwriting entity130is used to conduct an underwriting procedure. That is, the underwriting entity130is used to generate and issue, or update, an insurance policy or fidelity bonding policy190in response to the certification results174of the evaluation process120. For example, the certified agent may be added to the policy. In general, however, the underwriting entity130will typically make its own independent evaluation and may or may not use the certification results174in determining underwriting status (i.e., the underwriting entity is not bound by the certification results).

When the decision is “to certify”, the certification entity105is saying that the risk associated with the agent, with respect to committing fraud or some other improper act with respect to the organization, is acceptable. If the determination of certification170is “no” (i.e., not to certify), then documented reasons for not certifying172are generated and forwarded to the investigation entity140.

In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the investigation entity140performs an investigation based on the documented reasons for not certifying172and generates a set of investigative results145. Information from the investigative results145may be input back into the risk assessment algorithm110, along with the personal financial disclosure statement150and the set of personal financial records160and other relevant financial data to generate a second set of risk assessment data115(i.e., investigation-based risk assessment data). As part of the investigation, the investigative entity140may ask for additional information from the agent to be certified, or may wish to interview the agent to be certified.

The second risk assessment data115is input to the certification evaluation process120. The certification evaluation process120evaluates the second risk assessment data115to make a new investigated determination of certification170with respect to one of an individual person (e.g., an agent of the organization) or the organization itself. Based on the additional information from the investigative results145, the second risk assessment data115and, therefore, the new determination of certification170may be the same as (i.e., “no”) or different from (i.e., “yes”) the original determination of certification170. As a practical matter, there may be a limit to the number of times that a result of “no” or “do not certify” will be investigated. That is, at some point, the attempts to certify the agent will be stopped.

In accordance with an alternative embodiment of the present invention, financial records and other relevant financial data of other persons associated with the agent to be certified may be obtained and input into the risk assessment algorithm110along with the information from the agent to be certified. Such other persons may include, for example, a spouse, a child, a sibling, a business partner, or a parent of the agent to be certified. Such information of other persons may be helpful if, for example, an unscrupulous individual were to try to hide embezzled funds in an account that is in the name of a close relative.

FIG. 2illustrates a flowchart of a first embodiment of a method200which may be performed (i.e., conducted) to monitor the behavior/activity of an individual associated with an organization using the cooperative arrangement100ofFIG. 1, in accordance with various aspects of the present invention. In step210, a personal financial disclosure statement of an individual person, associated with or potentially to be associated with an organization, is obtained. In step220, personal financial records and other relevant financial data of the individual person are obtained. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, step220is performed only if the individual person gives permission. In step230, first information from the personal financial disclosure statement, the personal financial records, and other relevant financial data is input into a risk assessment algorithm. In step240, the risk assessment algorithm operates on the first input information and thereby generates first risk assessment data. In step250, the first risk assessment data is evaluated to make a first determination of certification with respect to the individual person. In accordance with an alternative embodiment of the present invention, information from personal financial records and other relevant financial data are used. A personal financial disclosure statement is may not be obtained.

As an example, referring toFIG. 1, an agent of a corporation is to be certified for risk by the certification entity105. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the certification entity105is preferably, but not necessarily, an independent entity which is in the business of certifying individual agents of other organizations (e.g., publicly held corporations, non-publicly held corporations, government entities), for example. Such certification helps to ensure that the agent being certified is likely to comply with policies, procedures, rules, best practices, ethical and moral standards, and controls of the organization such as, for example, complying with Sarbanes-Oxley regulations. Such certification also helps to ensure that the agent being certified is likely to not engage in fraudulent activities such as, for example, embezzlement of funds, or other improper behaviors.

Continuing with the example, the agent registers with the certifying entity105and provides a personal financial disclosure statement150to the certification entity105. Information provided on the personal financial disclosure statement may include, for example, information related to assets (e.g., home ownership), and liabilities (e.g., credit card debt) of the agent as well as income (e.g., a salary). The agent also gives permission to the certification entity105to obtain past and present personal financial records160and other relevant financial data such as, for example, tax return records, treasury records, real estate records, banking records, a credit report, and a Fair Isaac Company (FICO) score.

Information is extracted from the personal financial disclosure statement150and the personal financial records160and other relevant financial data and is input into the risk assessment algorithm110. The risk assessment algorithm110operates on the input information and generates risk assessment data115. The risk assessment data115may include, for example, detected discrepancies found when comparing the agent's personal financial disclosure statement150and the personal financial records160. For example, an income discrepancy may be found. Also, evidence of irresponsible behavior may be detected (e.g., not paying minimum balances due on credit cards), evidence of suspicious behavior may be found (e.g., an unusual transfer of funds, a sudden move or change of residence), and an assessment of financial stability may be made (e.g., an assessment of “unstable” because the bank is about to foreclose on the agent's home). Other risk assessment data are possible as well, in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention. The weighting of these and other factors may vary by design.

Next, the risk assessment data115goes into the certification evaluation process120. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the risk assessment data115is operated on by the certification evaluation process120to generate a composite risk factor in response to the risk assessment data115. The composite risk factor is a reliable indicator of the agent's level of risk with respect to fraudulent or other improper activity. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the composite risk factor is a single numeric value or score. The composite risk factor is compared to a threshold value which is also a numeric value.

If the composite risk factor is greater than the threshold value, then a decision to “not certify” the agent is made. If the composite risk factor is less than the threshold value, then a decision to “certify” is made. In accordance with an alternative embodiment of the present invention, if the resultant composite risk factor is within a predefined range of values about the threshold value, a decision to “delay certification” is made and further action is taken to determine if the composite risk factor can be lowered (i.e., if the risk can be reduced) in order to subsequently make a decision to “certify”. Other means of comparing a composite risk factor are possible as well, in accordance with various other embodiments of the present invention.

In accordance with an alternative embodiment of the present invention, the risk assessment algorithm110and the certification evaluation process120are implemented as a single algorithm or process. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the risk assessment algorithm110and/or the certification evaluation process120are both implemented on a processor-based platform such as, for example, a personal computer (PC). In accordance with various embodiments of the present invention, the certification evaluation process120may be performed manually by a human, or may be performed automatically by a processor-based platform (e.g., a PC).

In the case where a decision to “certify” is made, certification results174may be generated and forwarded to the underwriting entity130as an option. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the certification results174may include, for example, the resultant composite risk factor and the threshold value used, certain specified personal identification information of the certified agent and other certain financial information associated with the agent that were used to generate the composite risk factor. The underwriting entity130is typically an insurance company or a fidelity bonding entity, in accordance with certain embodiments of the present invention, and is preferably, but not necessarily, independent of the certification entity105and the investigation entity140.

In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, underwriting includes insuring the organization by accepting liability for designated losses arising from improper activities with respect to the organization by the agent. The underwriting entity130takes the certification results174and underwrites the organization by generating or adjusting an insurance policy or bonding policy having terms, conditions, and premium fees which are calculated in response to, at least in part, the certification results174.

For example, if the certified agent's calculated composite risk factor is well below the threshold value, then the insurance premium fees that are to be paid for the insurance policy may be reduced or discounted from a standard rate of someone not having certification. Also, the terms and conditions of the insurance policy may be more favorable. For example, the amount of time that can pass before the agent is to be re-certified may be longer. Also, monitoring of the agent's future personal financial activities may be less frequent. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the insurance premiums may be paid by the organization of the agent. As a result, the organization may be able to eliminate other forms of bonding and/or insurance coverage.

If new financial information is obtained for an agent and processed through the certification entity105and the resultant updated composite risk factor, based on the new information, is closer to the threshold value than a previously calculated composite risk factor, then the underwriting may be updated (i.e., premiums, terms and conditions may be re-calculated) as well based on the improved composite risk factor. Similarly, if the resultant updated composite risk factor is further away from the threshold, even better underwriting premiums, terms, and conditions may be provided.

In the case where a decision to not certify is made, documented reasons for not certifying172are forwarded to the investigation entity140. In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the investigation entity140is a private agency or entity with expertise in investigating personal financial matters of individuals. The investigation entity130takes the documented reasons for not certifying172and determines the underlying circumstances involved and generates corresponding investigation results145. In accordance with an alternative embodiment of the present invention, the investigation entity140is not independent of the certifying entity105and/or the organization. That is, self-policing may be performed.

For example, the agent's composite risk factor may be too high because the agent is seen to own shares of stock in a competing corporation which constitutes, at a minimum, a conflict of interest. Upon investigation, the investigative entity140determines that the shares of stock were purchased for the agent as a child by his father many years ago. The agent had forgotten about the shares of stock and, therefore, failed to disclose them on his personal financial disclosure statement150. The investigative results145are then forwarded to the certifying entity105along with a recommendation that the agent sell the problematic shares of stock. Upon selling the shares of stock, information is extracted from the investigation results145and input into the risk assessment algorithm110along with the fact that the agent no longer owns the shares of stock, and along with the information previously extracted from the agent's personal financial disclosure statement150, personal financial records160and other relevant financial data.

An updated set of risk assessment results115are generated and an updated composite risk factor, which is substantially lower than the original composite risk factor is generated. Upon comparing the updated composite risk factor to the threshold value, a determination to “certify” the agent is made. As a result, the agent becomes certified and the underwriting process may proceed if desired.

In accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, the risk assessment algorithm110takes the input information and generates a set of internal parameters. The risk assessment algorithm then applies weightings to the set of internal parameters and combines the weighted internal parameters in a particular way to generate the risk assessment results115. Certain weighted internal parameters and/or combinations of weighted internal parameters may be applied to certain internal thresholds in a certain manner to generate particular risk assessment results115(e.g., binary risk assessment results).

In accordance with a further embodiment of the present invention, the risk assessment algorithm110is an evolutionary algorithm that can evolve over time as the risk assessment algorithm110is presented with new training input information along with truth output data corresponding to the input information. For example, information from a known first group of agents who have deliberately not complied with corporate governance rules and procedures and/or who are known to have committed fraud may be input into the risk assessment algorithm110along with the fact that these agents should not be certified (i.e., the algorithm should be able to adapt to generate risk assessment data115that detects a problem with this first group of agents with respect to risk). Similarly, information from a known second group of agents who have always complied with corporate governance rules and procedures and are known to have not committed fraud may be input into the risk assessment algorithm110along with the fact that these agents should be certified (i.e., the algorithm should be able to adapt to generate risk assessment data that does not detect a problem with this second group of agents with respect to risk).

Similarly, in accordance with a still further embodiment of the present invention, the certification evaluation process120is an evolutionary algorithm that can evolve over time as the certification evaluation process120is presented with new training risk assessment data115along with truth output data corresponding to the new risk assessment data115. For example, when presented with the risk assessment data115corresponding to the known agents who deliberately did not comply with corporate governance rules and procedures and who committed fraud, the certification evaluation process120may adapt in order to correctly generate a “do not certify” output at the certification determination step170. Such an adaptation may involve adapting the formula for calculating the composite risk factor and/or changing the threshold value. Similarly, when presented with the risk assessment data115corresponding to the known agents who always complied with corporate governance rules and procedures and did not commit fraud, the certification evaluation process120may adapt in order to correctly generate a “certify” output at the certification determination step170.

Typically, the risk assessment algorithm110, the certification evaluation process120, and the certification determination step170are allowed to evolve simultaneously in order to take into account the truth data presented. Such evolutionary algorithms may be implemented as, for example, genetic algorithms and/or neural network-based algorithms on processor-based platforms, in accordance with various embodiments of the present invention.

Just as a single individual can be certified (and optionally underwritten) for risk of fraud and other improper behaviors, an entire organization may also be certified (and optionally underwritten), in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention.FIG. 3illustrates a flowchart of a second embodiment of a method300which may be performed (conducted) to monitor the behavior/activity of an individual associated with an organization using the cooperative arrangement ofFIG. 1, in accordance with various aspects of the present invention. In step310, a personal financial disclosure statement of each of a plurality of individual persons associated with an organization is obtained. In step320, personal financial records of each of the individual persons and other relevant financial data are obtained. In step330, first information is extracted and input from each of the personal financial disclosure statements, each of the personal financial records, and each of the other relevant financial data into a risk assessment algorithm. In step340, the risk assessment algorithm operates on the first input information and thereby generates first risk assessment data. In step350, the first risk assessment data is evaluated and thereby a determination of certification is made with respect to the organization.

Therefore, by applying the cooperative arrangement100ofFIG. 1to all of the agents of an organization that handle or have direct or even indirect input to any of the certified financial statements of the organization, the entire organization may become certified, and optionally underwritten, for risk of fraud and other improper behaviors, for example. Just as for an individual agent, a composite risk factor may be generated for the entire organization and compared to a threshold value. The underwriting and/or investigative process illustrated inFIG. 1may be followed with respect to the entire organization (e.g., a publicly held corporation), based on assessing the risk associated with a plurality of agents.

Alternatively, the method200ofFIG. 2may simply be repeated for each of the agents of the organization and, therefore, the organization becomes certified only after each of the agents is individually certified.

FIG. 4illustrates a flowchart of an embodiment of a method400which may be performed (conducted) to monitor an individual of an organization for risk using the cooperative arrangement ofFIG. 1, in accordance with various aspects of the present invention. In step410updated personal financial records of an individual that is currently certified for risk with respect to an organization are periodically obtained. In step420, updated information from the updated personal financial records and other relevant financial data is input into a risk assessment algorithm along with previous information from a previously obtained personal financial disclosure statement of the individual. In step430, the risk assessment algorithm operates on the input information and thereby generates updated risk assessment data. In step440, the updated risk assessment data is evaluated and an updated determination of certification is made with respect to the individual.

For example, an agent of an independent corporation who is currently certified and covered under the organization's insurance policy190may be required to allow updated (i.e., most-recent) personal financial records to be obtained by the certifying entity105every fiscal quarter, in accordance with the terms of the corresponding policy190. As a result, the certifying entity105is able to effectively monitor the agent to see if any significant changes in his/her personal financial status has changed that could affect the agent's risk of committing fraud or other improper activities with respect to the independent corporation. Another agent of the independent corporation may be required to provide updated personal financial records only once a year, because of the agent's superior certification status (i.e., lower composite risk factor) and superior underwriting status.

In accordance with an alternative embodiment of the present invention, the financial status of an agent may be, effectively, continuously monitored. That is, as soon as updated financial information or data for an agent becomes available, the information is immediately input to the risk assessment algorithm and processed. The agent's financial behavior is effectively tracked.

If the agent's status changes from “certify” to “do not certify”, then the investigative process previously described may be triggered and followed. As another example, if the agent's status remains “certify” but the agent's composite risk factor has changed (i.e., increased or decreased), the terms and conditions and/or premiums of the associated underwriting policy for the agent's company, if there is one, may be updated to reflect the changed risk. If no significant changes result, the previous certifying and underwriting status may be maintained.

In accordance with an alternative embodiment of the present invention, the agent may be required to provide an updated personal financial disclosure statement which is then also used in the monitoring process.

The method400ofFIG. 4also can also serve as a first indicator of identity theft for the monitored agent. Any unusual activity due to any form of identity theft may be detected by the certifying entity105, or by the investigating entity140. For example, if the agent's credit card number is stolen and used in such a way that would be considered unusual for the agent (e.g., sudden fluctuations in the account balance are seen), such an unauthorized use may be detected by the risk assessment algorithm110.

Employees of the organization for which the agent works may be encouraged to report any observed misconduct on the part of the agent to persons in charge of the certifying entity105. In this way, a reporting employee is reporting to an entity which may or may not be independent of his/her employer and, therefore, may be less reluctant to report such misconduct without fear of retaliation from the employer (i.e., from the organization for which the agent and the reporting employee are employed).

In accordance with an alternative embodiment of the present invention, there may be multiple levels or degrees of certification. For example, “gold”, “silver”, and “bronze” levels of certification may be defined based on ranges of possible numeric values that the composite risk factor can take on. As another example, levels of certification may be defined based on a number of years that an agent has been certified (e.g., 5-years certified, 10-years certified, etc.).

In accordance with a further alternative embodiment of the present invention, certification may be directed to particular positions within a company. For example, the composite risk factor requirement for a CEO may be different than that for a head of marketing. As another example, the exact risk assessment algorithm used may be somewhat different for a CEO than for a head of marketing.

In accordance with various embodiments of the present invention, certification may be mandatory or may be voluntary. For example, there may be an employee of an organization that is not required to be certified but would like to go through the certification process (possibly excluding the underwriting part of the process) in order to establish himself as an exemplary person of trustworthiness. Such a voluntary certification could help the employee gain a promotion into a position of higher responsibility, for example.

As another example, a private employer (i.e., not a publicly held company) may decide that all of his employees must become certified, in accordance with an embodiment of the present invention, in order to remain or become employed at his private company. That is, certification is a condition of employment. Such a mandatory prerequisite for employment can allow the private employer to hire and retain only those people that are trustworthy.

In summary, a cooperative arrangement and methods of helping to deter fraud and other improper activities within an organization are disclosed. Financial information is collected for at least one individual of the organization and fed into a risk assessment algorithm to determine a level of risk with respect to the individual. If the level of risk is acceptable, the individual may be certified and optionally underwritten in order to protect the organization against any losses incurred arising from improper conduct by the individual with respect to the organization.