THE IMPACT OF FRAUD
AT U.S. PUBLIC
COMPANIES
2025 Benchmarking Report
|1
INTRODUCTION
The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) and the Anti-Fraud
Collaboration (AFC) have partnered to assess the impact of all forms of fraud
on publicly traded companies in the United States. By providing insight into
these organizations’ fraud losses in recent years, factors that contribute to
current levels of fraud, and how organizations prioritize and manage various
types of fraud risks, we hope to offer anti-fraud professionals, company
management, financial reporting stakeholders, and the general public
valuable information to use in understanding the risk that fraud poses to
U.S. public companies.
In March 2025, we sent a 29-question survey to ACFE members and members
of the AFC’s partners. All survey responses were collected anonymously. We
received a total of 1,049 survey responses, 396 of which were usable for the
purposes of this report.
The Impact of Fraud at U.S. Public Companies Benchmarking Report |2
KNOWN FRAUD LOSSES AT U.S.
PUBLIC COMPANIES Fig. 1 MEDIAN ANNUAL REVENUE LOST TO KNOWN
To help gauge the magnitude of fraud losses experienced FRAUD AT U.S. PUBLIC COMPANIES
by U.S. public companies, we asked survey participants
with direct visibility into a specific U.S. public company
(i.e., employees and board/audit committee members) to
provide their organization’s total revenue and the actual 1.07% 1.06%
amount of known losses from all forms of fraud for both
2023 and 2024. By comparing these figures, we determined
that the organizations covered in our study lost just over 1%
of their revenue to known fraud during the years in scope.
The findings were consistent across both years, with a 2023 2024
difference of only .01 percentage points between them.
ESTIMATED FRAUD LOSSES Fig. 2 ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE LOST TO ALL
Unlike other organizational risks, fraud risk inherently
FRAUD AT THE TYPICAL U.S. PUBLIC COMPANY
involves an element of intentional concealment—which
means that known fraud losses is an imperfect measure
of the total amount of all frauds that affect organizations.
Some frauds will remain undetected, and not all detected 4%
frauds will be formally reported. Even for frauds that do
come to light, the full amount of the loss might not be
determinable. ACFE research also shows that about half of 3%
all internal frauds last more than 12 months before being
2.5%
detected, meaning some frauds that were occurring in 2023
and 2024 were likely not yet included in the known fraud 2%
losses for those years.
To obtain a broader view of the magnitude of fraud risk
affecting U.S. public companies, we asked respondents
to estimate total fraud losses from all forms of fraud
sustained by a typical U.S. public company in any given year,
as a percentage of the company’s annual revenue. (It is Overall Employee Governance External
important to note that this question was posed about all U.S.
public companies, and not just the one(s) the respondents
had personal visibility into.) The median estimate from all respondents was 2.5%, meaning survey respondents estimate that
the typical U.S. public company loses 2.5% of revenues each year to fraud, whether detected or undetected.
We also compared respondents’ estimates based on their roles by breaking the results into three categories: employee,
governance (i.e., on the board of directors or audit committee), and external (i.e., those in consulting, external audit, or
government regulatory/investigative roles). The estimates provided by respondents in external roles were the largest (4% of
annual revenue) and twice the estimate of those in governance roles (2% of annual revenue). Comparatively, employees of
U.S. public companies estimated typical company fraud losses at 3% of annual revenue, despite the known fraud loss figures
provided being just over 1% of annual revenue. This might indicate a high perceived level of undetected fraud in general or a
belief by respondents that the typical U.S. public company loses more to fraud than their own organization.
The Impact of Fraud at U.S. Public Companies Benchmarking Report |3
LIKELIHOOD AND SIGNIFICANCE OF FRAUD RISKS
To assess the relative risks of different fraud types at U.S. public companies, we asked respondents to rate both the
likelihood and significance of six categories of fraud. As noted in Figure 3, cyberfraud represented both the most likely and
most significant fraud risk. Of the different types of fraud, financial statement fraud was identified as the least likely to
occur, but the impact when such frauds do occur is expected to be significant. Additionally, the risks noted as being the most
likely are all external frauds (i.e., those perpetrated by individuals outside the organization): cyberfraud, customer payment
fraud, and fraud by vendors and sellers. The risks noted as being the least likely are all internal frauds (i.e., those perpetrated
by individuals inside the organization): financial statement fraud, bribery and corruption, and asset misappropriation/
embezzlement.
Fig. 3 LIKELIHOOD AND SIGNIFICANCE OF FRAUD RISKS AT U.S. PUBLIC COMPANIES
5
Catastrophic
4 Cyberfraud
Financial statement fraud
Significance
Bribery and corruption
3
Fraud by vendors and sellers
Asset misappropriation/embezzlement Customer payment fraud
2
Inconsequential
1
1 2 3 4 5
Likelihood
Remote Probable
White text = External frauds
Blue text = Internal frauds
The Impact of Fraud at U.S. Public Companies Benchmarking Report |4
PAST, CURRENT, AND FUTURE LEVELS OF FRAUD
We asked survey respondents about their perceptions regarding past, current, and anticipated future levels of fraud at U.S.
public companies. More than 70% of survey respondents rated the current level of fraud as either medium or high. When
asked how the overall level of fraud at U.S. public companies has changed over the past two years and how it is expected
to change over the next two years, two-thirds of respondents indicated that the overall level of fraud has increased and will
continue to do so over the next two years.
Fig. 4 CURRENT OVERALL LEVEL OF FRAUD AT U.S. PUBLIC COMPANIES
Nonexistent 1%
Immaterial/low 27%
Material/medium 53%
Extremely material/high 19%
Fig. 5 CHANGE IN OVERALL LEVEL OF FRAUD AT U.S. PUBLIC COMPANIES OVER THE PAST 2 YEARS
Has decreased significantly 2%
Has decreased slightly 8%
Has stayed about the same 24%
Has increased slightly 48%
Has increased significantly 18%
Fig. 6 EXPECTED CHANGE IN OVERALL LEVEL OF FRAUD AT U.S. PUBLIC COMPANIES OVER THE NEXT 2 YEARS
Will decrease significantly 6%
Will decrease slightly 11%
Will stay about the same 17%
Will increase slightly 46%
Will increase significantly 20%
The Impact of Fraud at U.S. Public Companies Benchmarking Report |5
FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO Fig. 7 EMPLOYEE RESPONSES
THE CURRENT LEVEL OF FRAUD
Most significant
We asked respondents to rank the significance of ten 1 Regulatory environment
factors in contributing to the current level of fraud at U.S.
public companies based on their experience. Separating the 2 Economic conditions/environment
results into the three different categories of respondents
reveals that the groups have different perceptions about 3 Organizational culture/tone at the top
which factors contribute the most to current levels of
External pressures
fraud, which is likely influenced by each group’s individual 4 (e.g., market expectations for financial performance)
exposure to fraud at U.S. public companies.
Employees rated the regulatory environment as the most 5 Overall internal control environment
significant contributing factor, while respondents in
the governance (board and audit committee members) 6 Maturity of anti-fraud program
category indicated that the most significant contributing
factor was quality of external audits, and the external 7 Technological advancements
respondents (regulators, consultants, and external
Effectiveness of governance by board
auditors) considered the economic environment or 8 and audit committee
Least significant
conditions to be the most significant contributing factor.
Overall, the employee and external respondents’ rankings Risk profile of operations
9 (e.g., geographical jurisdictions)
of the contributing factors were relatively similar, while
those of the governance group notably differed. The only
10 Quality of external audits
factor that every group ranked in the top five was economic
conditions/environment.
Fig. 8 GOVERNANCE RESPONSES Fig. 9 EXTERNAL RESPONSES
Most significant
Most significant
1 Quality of external audits 1 Economic conditions/environment
2 Technological advancements 2 Organizational culture/tone at the top
External pressures
3 Maturity of anti-fraud program 3 (e.g., market expectations for financial performance)
Effectiveness of governance by board Effectiveness of governance by board
4 and audit committee 4 and audit committee
5 Economic conditions/environment 5 Overall internal control environment
External pressures
6 (e.g., market expectations for financial performance) 6 Regulatory environment
Risk profile of operations
7 (e.g., geographical jurisdictions) 7 Technological advancements
8 Overall internal control environment 8 Quality of external audits
Least significant
Least significant
Risk profile of operations
9 Organizational culture/tone at the top 9 (e.g., geographical jurisdictions)
10 Regulatory environment 10 Maturity of anti-fraud program
The Impact of Fraud at U.S. Public Companies Benchmarking Report |6
WHO “OWNS” FRAUD?
As seen in Figure 10, the responsibility for the anti-fraud program or function varies among U.S. public companies. We
asked respondents in employee or governance roles who “owns” fraud at their organization, and we allowed them to select
multiple departments to account for shared responsibility. Internal audit and compliance teams are the most likely to hold
responsibility for the fraud function, with more than half of respondents indicating that these groups own the anti-fraud
program at their organizations.
Fig. 10 RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANTI-FRAUD PROGRAM/FUNCTION
of respondent
organizations have
multiple departments
responsible for the anti-fraud
58%
56% program/function.
45%
43%
41%
35%
3%
Internal Compliance Legal Risk Corporate Investigation Other
audit security
STRENGTHENING FRAUD
56%
recommended more or improved
proactive and continuous
PREVENTION AND DETECTION monitoring for fraud.
AT U.S. PUBLIC COMPANIES
We asked employees and individuals in governance roles
15% recommended new or improved
use of technology and AI.
13%
what could have been done differently to better deter recommended enhanced efforts
fraud or detect it sooner at their organizations. Their related to fraud awareness training
responses provided several key trends and insights: and an anti-fraud culture.
The Impact of Fraud at U.S. Public Companies Benchmarking Report |7
SURVEY RESPONDENTS
Fig. 11 RESPONDENT ROLE WITH U.S. PUBLIC COMPANIES
3% 3% 1%
14% 50%
Current employee of a U.S. public company
Governance role (i.e., on the board of directors or audit committee)
for one or more U.S. public companies
Consultant or advisor for one or more U.S. public companies
External auditor for one or more U.S. public companies
29%
Employee of government agency that has regulatory or
investigative authority over U.S. public companies
Other
We asked respondents to describe their role in relation to U.S. public companies, as seen in Figure 11. Half of survey
respondents are current employees of a company that is traded publicly in the United States. Respondents in our second-
largest group (29%) serve in a governance role (i.e., on the board of directors or audit committee) for one or more U.S. public
companies. The remaining respondents all have roles that involve working closely with U.S. public companies from an
external perspective, whether as consultants or advisors (14%), external auditors (3%), or employees of government agencies
that have regulatory or investigative authority over these organizations (3%).
We also asked the survey respondents currently employed by a U.S. public company about their specific occupations. As
shown in Figure 12, fraud examiner/investigator (36%) and internal auditor (24%) were the most common positions, and
together made up 60% of the employees who completed the survey.
Fig. 12 EMPLOYEE OCCUPATIONS
Fraud examiner/investigator 36%
Internal auditor 24%
Compliance and ethics professional 15%
Risk management professional 14%
Other 6%
Financial statement preparer/
corporate accounting/finance 5%
The Impact of Fraud at U.S. Public Companies Benchmarking Report |8
ABOUT THE ACFE
Founded in 1988 by Dr. Joseph T. Wells, CFE, CPA, the Association
of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE) is the world’s largest anti-fraud
organization. Together with more than 95,000 members, the ACFE works
to reduce business fraud worldwide and inspire public confidence in the
integrity and objectivity within the profession. To learn more, visit ACFE.com.
ABOUT THE ANTI-FRAUD COLLABORATION
The Anti-Fraud Collaboration (AFC) was created with the recognition that
fighting fraud is a shared responsibility across the financial reporting
ecosystem. The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners (ACFE), Center for
Audit Quality (CAQ), Financial Executives International (FEI), The Institute of
Internal Auditors (IIA), and the National Association of Corporate Directors
(NACD), representing members of the financial reporting ecosystem, have
formed a collaboration dedicated to advancing the discussion of critical anti-
fraud efforts through initiatives focused on the following mission: Enhance
the effectiveness of financial fraud risk management by promoting anti-fraud
policies, procedures, controls, and practices, including those enhanced or
enabled by technology. To learn more, visit AntiFraudCollaboration.org.
© 2025 Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc. “ACFE,” “CFE,” “Certified Fraud Examiner,” “Association of Certified Fraud Examiners,” the ACFE Seal, the
ACFE Logo and related trademarks, names and logos are the property of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners, Inc., and are registered and/or used in
the U.S. and countries around the world.
|9
