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
Shortage of high-quality data threatening the AI boom
And other fundamental issues highlighted by the Open Data Institute.
Data centres top the list of growth opportunities
In robust, yet heterogenous world BACS market.
Increased funding for BSR announced
Within plans for next generation of new towns.
New Towns Taskforce interim policy statement
With initial reactions to the 6 month policy update.
Heritage, industry and slavery
Interpretation must tell the story accurately.
PM announces Building safety and fire move to MHCLG
Following recommendations of the Grenfell Inquiry report.
Conserving the ruins of a great Elizabethan country house.
BSRIA European air conditioning market update 2024
Highs, lows and discrepancy rates in the annual demand.
50 years celebrating the ECA Apprenticeship Awards
As SMEs say the 10 years of the Apprenticeship Levy has failed them.
Nominations sought for CIOB awards
Celebrating construction excellence in Ireland and Northern Ireland.
EPC consultation in context: NCM, SAP, SBEM and HEM
One week to respond to the consultation on reforms to the Energy Performance of Buildings framework.
CIAT Celebrates 60 years of Architectural Technology
Find out more #CIAT60 social media takeover.
The BPF urges Chancellor for additional BSR resources
To remove barriers and bottlenecks which delay projects.
Flexibility over requirements to boost apprentice numbers
English, maths and minimumun duration requirements reduced for a 10,000 gain.
A long term view on European heating markets
BSRIA HVAC 2032 Study.
Humidity resilience strategies for home design
Frequency of extreme humidity events is increasing.
National Apprenticeship Week 2025
Skills for life : 10-16 February
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.