In this month's Case in Point: Lessons for the Proactive Manager, we continue our review of the events of 2017 with a focus on the Fraud & Ethics category. I speak on this topic regularly and also teach ''Fraud Examination'' in the Masters of Accountancy Program here at Auburn University's Raymond J. Harbert College of Business.

Here is the breakdown of stories in the Fraud & Ethics category in 2017:

• Occupational Fraud 39%
• Use of Funds 27%
• Non-occupational Fraud 18%
• Academic Fraud 10%
• Research Fraud 6%

Many people are surprised to learn that education as an industry is actually a frequent victim of fraud. The most common type of fraud we see in education can be termed ''occupational fraud,'' which simply means an employee steals or misappropriates from their employer. The best way to prevent occupational fraud is by having good internal controls. In my view the two most important components of internal control are: (1) ensuring one person doesn't have complete control of a process and (2) management adequately fulfilling their oversight role. Too often, the lack of simple oversight allows occupational fraud to occur. If you manage money, people, contracts, accounts, or just about anything else, paying attention to what is going on is part of the oversight deal.

The category we termed ''use of funds'' refers to stories in which institutions were questioned over how funds were spent rather than fraud per se. We are stewards of funds from a variety of sources—including taxpayers. With stewardship comes the responsibility to ensure we are making wise decisions in how we use institutional funds. With increased transparency in today's social media world, if anything, this category will only grow in importance.

The non-occupational frauds were those committed by individuals outside the institution. We saw numerous institutions across higher education get hit by vendor imposter frauds over the past year. In these schemes the fraudster poses as a legitimate vendor and asks for a change to the vendor bank account. If this scheme works, the next payment to the vendor is received by the fraudster rather than the legitimate vendor. Essentially, this scheme is a targeted form of phishing.

Ensuring we maintain vigilance in protecting institutional resources is very important. It is also just one of the many things we must think about when we consider the wide variety of risks we face in higher education. We again invite you to review the events occurring across our industry over the prior month, and, as always, we welcome your comments and feedback.

(Read more of Case In Point)