Why Good Employees Make Bad Fraud Victims
By Benjamin Howery, Claims Executive and Team Lead
After years of helping organizations navigate fraud, cyber, and social engineering claims, I’ve noticed something surprising. One of the hardest conversations after a fraud loss isn't with the carrier, the CFO, or outside counsel.
It's with the employe who unknowingly helped make it possible.
By the time I get involved, they've usually replayed the event dozens of times in their head. The payroll change request. The email from a senior leader. The banking information update. The urgent message that seemed legitimate at the time.
They're embarrassed. Frustrated. Sometimes they're even worried about their future with the organization.
And in many cases, my reaction is the same:
"Honestly, I can see why you thought it was legitimate."
When organizations experience fraud, the immediate question is often, "How did someone fall for that?"
It's a fair question. But after years of helping organizations navigate claims, I've noticed something surprising.
The employees involved are rarely careless.
In fact, they're often some of the organization's strongest performers.
The Pattern I Didn't Expect
One pattern I've noticed across fraud claims is that technology isn't always the point of failure.
The organization had procedures.
The employee had training.
The email wasn't obviously suspicious.
The person simply made what felt like a reasonable decision based on the information available at the time.
After seeing enough of these situations, I started noticing something unexpected.
The employees involved weren't disengaged, reckless, or struggling with performance. More often than not, they were exactly the employees every organization wants more of.
They're responsive.
They follow through.
They solve problems.
They take ownership.
They don't like telling people "no."
They don't like creating delays.
In other words, good employees often make the most effective fraud targets.
The Risk Hidden Inside a High-Performance Culture
HR leaders spend enormous amounts of effort creating organizations that move quickly.
We celebrate responsiveness, praise initiative, and look for people who solve problems without being asked.
Most of the time, that's exactly right.
But fraudsters have become remarkably effective at weaponizing those strengths.
The same employee who responds to a client request within minutes may feel pressure to act immediately when a request appears to come from a senior leader.
The same employee who takes ownership of problems may be reluctant to slow down a process with additional questions.
The same employee who prides themselves on being helpful may become the easiest person to manipulate.
Fraudsters understand something many organizations overlook: people are more likely to bypass normal processes when they believe they're helping someone, solving a problem, or meeting an urgent need.
The attack is rarely about technology.
It's about creating just enough urgency to override good judgment.
The Cost of Skipping One Step
Many fraud losses don't occur because an organization lacked procedures. They occur because someone felt pressure to skip a procedure that already existed.
- A direct deposit change wasn't independently verified.
- A request for employee information wasn't confirmed through another channel.
- A banking instruction was processed before someone picked up the phone.
In hindsight, the missed verification step often looks obvious.
In the moment, it felt like being responsive.
I was recently involved with a claim where the owner and president of a company received what appeared to be a legitimate communication from a long-standing vendor. The request involved updated payment instructions for an upcoming transaction. Nothing about the request raised any immediate red flags. The relationship was established, the timing made sense, and the communication appeared authentic.
The payment was sent.
Only later did the company discover the vendor's email account had been compromised and the updated banking instructions belonged to a fraudster.
What stuck with me about that situation wasn't the dollar amount. It was the fact that the decision-makers were intelligent, experienced business leaders who had successfully navigated countless transactions over the years.
They weren't careless or inexperienced. They simply made what appeared to be a reasonable business decision based on the information they had at the time.
That's why I often push back when these incidents are described as someone "falling for a scam."
The reality is that many modern fraud attempts are designed to look like ordinary business activities. The fraud succeeds because it feels routine, not because the victim lacks intelligence or experience.
What the Best Organizations Do Differently
The organizations that seem most successful at preventing fraud aren't necessarily the ones with the most sophisticated technology.
They are often the organizations that give employees permission to slow down.
They create cultures where verification is viewed as professionalism, not distrust.
Employees feel comfortable asking:
- Does this follow our normal process?
- Can I verify this another way?
- Should I make a quick phone call before proceeding?
- Is there a reason this request suddenly feels urgent?
Those questions may add a few minutes to a transaction.
They can also prevent a significant loss.
More importantly, employees know they won't be criticized for taking those extra steps.
A Final Thought
In many ways, fraud prevention is less about technology and more about culture.
The lesson I've taken from fraud claims isn't that employees need to become more suspicious.
It's that organizations need to give employees permission to slow down.
Verification is not distrust.
A phone call is not poor customer service.
Asking a question is not insubordination.
In fact, those behaviors may be some of the clearest signs that an employee is protecting the organization.
Ironically, the next fraud attempt your company faces may target one of your best employees.
Not because they're careless.
Not because they’re inexperienced.
Because they're trying to help.
This post is locked to comments.