Construction invoice fraud
According to data from online invoicing firm Tungsten, published in April 2016, UK construction businesses are losing more than £1.8bn from invoice fraud each year.
One in six construction firms believe fraudulent invoices have cost them more than £5,000 in the last year alone, with businesses losing on average £1,948 a year as a result.
The data also revealed that 60% of firms surveyed received a fraudulent or suspicious invoice in the past year, compared with a national average of 47%.
Although the construction companies surveyed expressed more concern than most other industries about the problem, only 11% said they would take action if they received a suspicious invoice. A further 6% of firms would not know what to do if a suspicious invoice was received, while only 54% would contact the police or a similar reporting service.
Fraudsters have been using tactics such as; embedding viruses in email attachments, attaching unknown invoices to an email or via post, making false changes to bank details and sending duplicate invoices.
Commenting on the survey, Tungsten chief executive Richard Hurwitz said:
“Construction firms face all manner of challenges, and it’s telling that cyber crime looms as one of the biggest. It seems particularly prevalent within the construction industry, possibly because many contractors have minimal back office support and therefore it is easier for fraudsters to get away with their tactics.”
In February, the government launched the Joint Fraud Taskforce to tackle fraud, backed by the National Crime Agency, Financial Fraud Action, the Bank of England and the major banks.
Pauline Smith, head of Action Fraud, which acts as the UK’s centre for fraud reporting and internet crime, said incidents of invoice fraud are under-reported, making it difficult to know the true scale of the problem or how it affects construction firms, saying, “It’s important that employees are made aware of invoice scams and are ready to recognise the signs of fraud”.
[edit] Related articles on Designing Buildings Wiki:
Featured articles and news
Industry Competence Steering Group restructure
ICSG transitions to the Industry Competence Committee (ICC) under the Building Safety Regulator (BSR).
Principal Contractor Competency Certification Scheme
CIOB PCCCS competence framework for Principal Contractors.
The CIAT Principal Designer register
Issues explained via a series of FAQs.
Conservation in the age of the fourth (digital) industrial revolution.
Shaping the future of heritage
Embracing the evolution of economic thinking.
Ministers to unleash biggest building boom in half a century
50 major infrastructure projects, 5 billion for housing and 1.5 million homes.
RIBA Principal Designer Practice Note published
With key descriptions, best practice examples and FAQs, with supporting template resources.
Electrical businesses brace for project delays in 2025
BEB survey reveals over half worried about impact of delays.
Accelerating the remediation of buildings with unsafe cladding in England
The government publishes its Remediation Acceleration Plan.
Airtightness in raised access plenum floors
New testing guidance from BSRIA out now.
Picking up the hard hat on site or not
Common factors preventing workers using head protection and how to solve them.
Building trust with customers through endorsed trades
Commitment to quality demonstrated through government endorsed scheme.
New guidance for preparing structural submissions for Gateways 2 and 3
Published by the The Institution of Structural Engineers.
CIOB launches global mental health survey
To address the silent mental health crisis in construction.
New categories in sustainability, health and safety, and emerging talent.
Key takeaways from the BSRIA Briefing 2024
Not just waiting for Net Zero, but driving it.
Comments
Can you please advise where the data came from in this article? I have looked through the Tungsten website but can't dind anything.
See https://www.tungsten-network.com/blog/the-staggering-scale-of-invoice-fraud
Thanks for linking this, I had seen this article but it doesnt contain a lot of the details your article does?
For example, from your article 'One in six construction firms believe fraudulent invoices have cost them more than £5,000 in the last year alone, with businesses losing on average £1,948 a year as a result.' However the article you have linked doesn't specify it is one in six construction firms, just one in six of those surveyed.
And then this information from your article is nowhere to be found in the one linked (except for the national average of 47%)
'The data also revealed that 60% of firms surveyed received a fraudulent or suspicious invoice in the past year, compared with a national average of 47%.
Although the construction companies surveyed expressed more concern than most other industries about the problem, only 11% said they would take action if they received a suspicious invoice. A further 6% of firms would not know what to do if a suspicious invoice was received, while only 54% would contact the police or a similar reporting service.'
It is a bit difficult to track down 4 years later - the original report could have been updated or removed - but the same facts were reported in a number of different places at the time.