Back to RFS homepage
Home Risks Crime, Theft, Burglary & Fidelity
Crime peril

Crime, Theft, Burglary & Fidelity

External theft of stock and cash, and internal employee fraud and embezzlement.

The risk

The loss that walks out the back door.

Crime exposure spans external burglary and theft of stock and cash, and internal fidelity loss, employee fraud, embezzlement and theft of cash or stock. Cash-handling and high-stock businesses carry the steepest exposure, and fidelity claims are typically discovered months after the loss, once the value is long gone.

Exposure profile

Where this risk lands on your balance sheet.

The exposures we evaluate first when scoping a programme against this risk.

01
Burglary & theft of stock
Forced-entry and theft of inventory and contents from your premises.
02
Cash-in-safe & cash-in-transit
Loss of cash on the premises and in movement to and from the bank.
03
Employee fidelity & embezzlement
Internal fraud by staff in positions of financial trust.
04
Forgery & funds misappropriation
Falsified instruments and diverted client or company funds.

Want a risk-specific programme review?

Speak with an advisor who has structured cover against this risk for clients in your sector.

Request an Assessment →
FAQ

Common Questions

An employee, on almost every measure. A burglary is a single event with a visible loss. Internal dishonesty is usually a pattern that runs for months or years before anybody notices, and the accumulated figure is larger than a break-in.
Whoever can both create a transaction and approve it. Concentration of authority matters far more than seniority, and in a small business that authority is often held by one long-trusted person because separating it never seemed necessary.
By accident. An audit, an absence during which somebody else covers the work, a supplier querying a payment. That is why the losses are large: the mechanism that stops it is chance rather than control, and chance takes time.
It means nothing has been detected. Given that detection is usually accidental, the absence of a discovered loss is weak evidence. The better question is whether a loss could run for a year without being noticed, and in most small finance functions it could.
Separating the person who authorises from the person who pays, reconciling bank statements independently of whoever prepares them, and enforcing leave so somebody else does the work for a fortnight each year. None of it is expensive, and each removes a way the loss stays hidden.